What's the scientific reason why an obviously fraudulent research get published and was under suspicion for a decade but only recently get retracted?>duplicated image patches>811 citations btwlmao, their whole field is so fake and gay that possibly thousands of "experts" read this paper and none of them bother to check.
>>16136574https://www.removepaywall.com/https:/www.statnews.com/2024/04/18/dana-farber-retracts-studies-laurie-glimcher
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp1104
Remember when Kary Mullis nobel winner and inventor of PCR technology proved the journal system to be a fraudulent joke in the 1990s?
>>16136590sauce?
>>16136612Some interview he gave where he discussed it.Jesus, googling his name now the results have really gotten worse and more politicised
>>16136616this one?https://www.planksip.org/there-are-no-old-wise-men-at-the-top-making-sure-we-dont-do-something-really-dumb/
>>16136620>there-are-no-old-wise-men-at-the-top-making-sure-we-dont-do-something-really-dumb/not checked it but that's definitely the quote I remember him making about it.He submitted several papers that were wrong to see if they were published without challenge
>>16136630How can I become a paper challenger?
I remember the feminist paper where they took Mein Kampf and replaced jews with men then submitted it to a journal
>>16138197link
>>16136574>What's the scientific reason why an obviously fraudulent research get publishedThat happens constantly because of how flawlessly the peer review system works.
>>16138210https://www.timesofisrael.com/duped-academic-journal-publishes-rewrite-of-mein-kampf-as-feminist-manifesto/
>>16139738omg its real lmao
>>16139738If you publish a rewrite of mein kampf as a jewish manifesto you end up with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
>>16136590imagine how much worse it is now than it was then
>>16143088Right, 1990s science was relatively ethical compared to how it is now
>>16144454the COVID panic showed how garbage these "sciences" are:https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/also, look at the most high profile retraction and notice that they all belong to "the science (TM)" that we should all entrust our health and future to: https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/
>>16141770LOLIts funny because its true
>>16136574>thousands of "experts" read this paper and none of them bother to check.They didn't call it out as fraudulent because they didn't want their own fraudulence called out, which is the price they would have paid.
>>16146479Is this the power of peer review?
>>16147626Is it possible to learn this power?
>>16136574good question. why is all the climate junk science published?
>>16144454And that was the era when the Bogs got their PhDs
>>16148314Black soiyence man got his fraudulent PhD in the 1990s too
>>16149207in the 1980s he was a professional baseball player
>>16136590Wasn't entirely fair how he did it but he definitely wasn't wrong at all.
>>16136574Really makes you wonder how much other fraudulent research there is out there that hasn't yet been retracted.
>>16152779
>>16149207From Columbia University
>>16155238what a prestigious institution
>>16136574>>811 citations btwHow many of the papers citing the fraudulent research got retracted?
>>16157118none, for some reason soience considers papers which are based on fraudulent research and false premises to still somehow be valid.
>>16143088No need to imagine, we're living in it
>>16153933We might not have seen the majority of it, but everyone knows its there
>>16136574People would rather focus on themselves than fix things that they know are wrong.
>>16138177Check PubPeer.
>>16159890How do you suggest we "fix" the fact that the majority of scientists are low IQ and behave immorally?
why were so many low IQ fake papers like this get accepted? shouldn't publishers have some kind of automatic software to check for those kind of thing? it should be a simple image processing task. even if there is no automated program, shouldn't the reviewers catch something like this at first glance?
>>16161000The reviewers and publishers are also low IQ. What do you expect?
>>16161005I mean, they can't be low IQ enough to not do basic pattern matching, right?
>>16161061
>>16160922cut out their tongues if they lie, cut off their hands if they steal, cut off their dicks if they fuck dogs
>>16136590No.
>>16136612pasta sauce
>>16136574>What's the scientific reason why an obviously fraudulent research get published Scientists are a class of extremely dishonest people, they're on par with politicians in that regard
There needs to be more incentive for people to replicate published experiments. Muh novelty and muh publish or perish inherently incentivizes publishing bullshit photoshopped Westerns or fraudulent superconductors. There also needs to be more severe consequences for falsifying data.
>>16165036>Muh noveltyErnest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.emphasis on that final sentence
>>16162541they all fuck dogs
>>16136574>811 citationsSo over
>>16167892Its extremely retarded that citing a source that gets retracted doesn't have cascading effects on all the papers which cite the retracted source. It makes it all too clear that the people publishing those papers do not care even slightly about publishing accurate scientific papers
>>16168562>Its extremely retarded that citing a source that gets retracted doesn't have cascading effects on all the papers which cite the retracted sourceIf that were the case then well over 99% of all publications would have been retracted
>>16169747Weeding out that much sure would make finding the needle in a haystack that represents decent publications a lot easier.
>>16170938it would be both hilarious and very useful to have academic publishing thinned down as weeded out down to the few dozen or so useful publications that aren't based on lies
>>16136574If it takes 10 years to get a paper retracted how come the vetting process to get it published to begin with isn't equally thorough?Do scientists just not care at all about accuracy and truthfulness?
>>16172969>If it takes 10 years to get a paper retracted how come the vetting process to get it published to begin with isn't equally thorough?scientists just do not care at all about accuracy and truthfulness, they only care about the ego boost of getting published in the academic vanity press
>>16136590Bogs did that tooand there has been no reform since
>>16174944>there has been no reform sinceThing now at actually way worse than they were back in the 1990s
>>16173519>6 billion publications>0 discoveries of meaningful use to value what a bad joke those useless wasters are
>>16172969This is the twenty-first century and we move at the speed of Science. There's no time for things like accuracy and verification. Science moves too quick for such things.
>>16139738...
>>16139738>oy vey dis iz like da holocaust all over again!!
>>16176835yep, they're worthless
>>16176835>0 discoveries of meaningful useif they make a discovery thats useful, it doesn't get published, nobody is going to give away a lucrative discovery for free, anything useful would be kept secret until it could be commercialized by the discoverer or sold
>>16176090The soience faggots sweep all evidence of their dishonesty under the rug because the reason they're employed is to shill lies. Thats why they never address the issue
