Re: Up to 1 in 7 research papers fabricated?

On 11/28/24 1:51 PM, erik simpson wrote:

On 11/28/24 11:10 AM, RonO wrote:

https://www.science.org/content/article/systematic-reviews-aim-extract-broad-conclusions-many-studies-are-peril
>
A researcher wanted to do a meta review evaluation of his research interest and came up with hundreds of papers when he only expected around 60.  Most of them were likely fabricated from paper mills.  This sounds pretty sad.
>
The ID perps almost never publish their junk in real journals, but it sounds like there are a lot of journals out there that would be happy to publish the IDiotic junk.
>
Ron Okimoto
>

Follow the money.  All the examples are in medicine or psychology. Someone should be policing this stuff, but who?  Needless to say, the government shouldn't be involved.  Perhaps a consortium of medical journal editors? (Real journals, of course.)
 

I'd like to see an analysis of what journals the fakes were in. But it's not all medicine. Just today a journal I follow, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, retracted a published paper upon discovering that it contained extensive plagiarism. And that's the leading journal in the field.