Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal ClosuresWiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraudFake studies have flooded the publishers of top scientific journals, leading to thousands of retractions and millions of dollars in lost revenue. The biggest hit has come to Wiley, a 217-year-old publisher based in Hoboken, N.J., which Tuesday announced that it was closing 19 journals, some of which were infected by large-scale research fraud. In the past two years, Wiley has retracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised, according to a spokesperson, and closed four journals. It isn't alone: At least two other publishers have retracted hundreds of suspect papers each. Several others have pulled smaller clusters of bad papers.Although this large-scale fraud represents a small percentage of submissions to journals, it threatens the legitimacy of the nearly $30 billion academic publishing industry and the credibility of science as a whole. The discovery of nearly 900 fraudulent papers in 2022 at IOP Publishing, a physical sciences publisher, was a turning point for the nonprofit. "That really crystallized for us, everybody internally, everybody involved with the business," said Kim Eggleton, head of peer review and research integrity at the publisher. "This is a real threat." The sources of the fake science are "paper mills" -- businesses or individuals that, for a price, will list a scientist as an author of a wholly or partially fabricated paper. The mill then submits the work, generally avoiding the most prestigious journals in favor of publications such as one-off special editions that might not undergo as thorough a review and where they have a better chance of getting bogus work published.
https://archive.is/5k8nI
>>16177146>$30 billion academic publishing industrysee this seems like the problem that caused all this
>>16177149curious, how much of that makes it to the actual researchers?
>The journal Science flagged the practice of buying authorship in 2013. The website Retraction Watch and independent researchers have since tracked paper mills through their advertisements and websites. Researchers say they have found them in multiple countries including Russia, Iran, Latvia, China and India.why is it always
>>161771910Funding comes from government or sponsors.The academic publishing industry is just one massive mafia holding researchers hostage of the system they created to profit from.
>>16177146Have faith in the science.
>>16177243their choice not to publish to arxiv
>>16177399
literally which journals now are considered paper mills? I know chinese and Indian students seem to have that shit as common knowledge, stepping out of undergrad with 10 ridiculously shitty, yet still published, papers on their CVs
>>16177923Satan is found inside of every atom.He is a crypto-Satanist.
>>16177943>literally which journals now are considered paper mills?I only subscribe to specific researchers/professors, not [[[Democratic Organizations]]].And me. I review my papers a lot to find new research to do (citation list is all me, lmfao......)NO, I PUBLISH *FIRST*...AND LAST (BECAUSE I DIDNT PUBLICLY PUBLISH IT THE FIRST TIME, I AM TOO HUMBLE A PERSON, LET TWO BLACK GIRLS TAKE CREDIT.)
>>16177146>closing down whole journals because they were found to be mostly fraudulent why are scientists all such massive liars?
>>16177943any that you have to pay to publish in
>shit tier journal full of lies goes out of business boo hoo
>>16179578They should all go out of belly up, the whole journal system is a farce. Its existence allows non-scientist publishers to gatekeep science.
>>16177146>make a billion dollar business out of publishing for the sake of publishing >people start to play by those rules and focus on publishing instead of doing actual research who would've thought
>>16177943If you have to pay to publish in it - it's a scam.
>>16180940The normal vanity press is at least honest about how and why they're publishing materials that are not commercially viable
>>16177146This kind of thing happens constantly and yet ppl still insist that you "trust the science".
>>16180940If you have to pay to publish then that means that what you're publishing is less than worthless. If you were publishing something worthwhile them you'd be able to get paid to publish it
>>16183541people who pay to publish:commercial advertisers political campaigns scientists
>>16184995>political campaigns>scientistssame thing, both are just greedy scammers looking to thieve tax funds and deliver nothing in return
>>16184995>people who pay to publishThey do that because they presume that they will personally benefit from paying to publish. Advertising isn't a cost, its an investment.
