Last year the annual number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. Most analysts believe the figure is only the tip of an iceberg of scientific fraud.

“The situation has become appalling,” said Professor Dorothy Bishop of Oxford University. “The level of publishing of fraudulent papers is creating serious problems for science. In many fields it is becoming difficult to build up a cumulative approach to a subject, because we lack a solid foundation of trustworthy findings. And it’s getting worse and worse.”

The startling rise in the publication of sham science papers has its roots in China, where young doctors and scientists seeking promotion were required to have published scientific papers. Shadow organisations – known as “paper mills” – began to supply fabricated work for publication in journals there.

The practice has since spread to India, Iran, Russia, former Soviet Union states and eastern Europe, with paper mills supplying ­fabricated studies to more and more journals as increasing numbers of young ­scientists try to boost their careers by claiming false research experience. In some cases, journal editors have been bribed to accept articles, while paper mills have managed to establish their own agents as guest editors who then allow reams of ­falsified work to be published.

  • ArbitraryValue
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    In my experience, people don’t pay much attention to anything from those countries unless there’s some special reason to take it seriously.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      Ya I generally avoid any paper that’s from China unless I really need the information it provides and then I need to go down a super tedious rabbit hole to make sure I can actually trust that it’s true.

    • dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, I’ve come across one or two papers of questionable origin presenting performance metrics nowhere near what I could replicate.

      Needless to say, I could only replicate the results when I introduced a very mundane procedure error nobody reputable would make. So yeah, lots of garbage out there