Liberal Forum

Scientists publishing fraudulent research has increased 10-fold over the past decade. This includes research from pharmaceuticals, climate change, and many other fields. Below, it shows that 20% of medical literature is made up. Not 2%, like can be expected from any field, but 20%. With the rise of AI, fraud is now easier than ever. So lefties, next time you hear people challenging 'the science', now you know why we are asking if it really is science. 

Scientific fraud represents, to varying degrees, an increasingly important part of medical literature and is estimated to make up nearly 20% of this literature. The increase in the number of articles accessible in preprint without peer review during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the accessibility of fraudulent articles. In recent years, the viral increase in the number of predatory journals has contributed to polluting the scientific literature with articles whose content is unverifiable. Given the international nature of biomedical research, there is an urgent need to define unequivocally what is considered scientific fraud. In order to counter scientific misconduct, national and supranational procedures should be implemented to inform researchers at the beginning of their medical and biomedical training. Ethics commissions should implement local procedures for monitoring ongoing research. Finally, the fight against predatory journals requires information for researchers and the availability of tools to identify these journals. 

Frontiers | Preventing fraud in biomedical research (frontiersin.org)

"It" shows that 20% is false.
How does "it" qualify as a judge of this?

Xavier_Onassis » 01 May 2023, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 11:41 am

"It" shows that 20% is false.
How does "it" qualify as a judge of this?

by research.  "it" checks their facts and figures.

Xavier_Onassis » 01 May 2023, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 11:41 am

"It" shows that 20% is false.
How does "it" qualify as a judge of this?

By other peers who know what they are doing. This 20% escaped peer review somehow. 

What matters is not the percentage that is false, but WHAT research is false.
If the research claims that 10% of all frogs have become homosexuals. that is far less consequential than the amount of methane flared off by Big Oil because it is too expensive to contain it.

What you seem to be claiming is that no one and nothing can be trusted.

Xavier_Onassis » 01 May 2023, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 12:04 pm

What matters is not the percentage that is false, but WHAT research is false.
If the research claims that 10% of all frogs have become homosexuals. that is far less consequential than the amount of methane flared off by Big Oil because it is too expensive to contain it.

What you seem to be claiming is that no one and nothing can be trusted.

Your premise is false. If one concept is built on the other, and there is fraud in even one of the claims, no matter how small, then the whole research study is flawed. That's why they do peer reviews. 

Your premise is false. If one concept is built on the other, and there is fraud in even one of the claims, no matter how small, then the whole research study is flawed. That's why they do peer reviews.

That is accurate. But how do you propose that all fraudulent articles be separated from those that are accurate?

Again, the specific content of all articles varies greatly, and is very important.

When I was in grad school, the favorite PhD candidate of the Dept of Spanish and Portuguese was greatly respected because of the topic of his dissertation. This was before anyone had word processors or search engines, by the way.

The topic (translated, as it was written in Spanish): The use of the definite and indefinite articles in "El Quijote"
The definite articles are the equivalent of a, an, the and some.  El, la, los, las, un, una, unos, and unas. El Quijote is the abbreviated title of the most famous novel written in Spanish, known in English as Don Quixote.

The novel is around 2000 pages long and so this was a very laborious thesis. But was it actually useful to future research?
I do not think so.

A lot of scientific research is also quite difficult, bit also rather inconsequential. That is why the topic of the research is so important.

Xavier_Onassis » 01 May 2023, 12:59 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 12:59 pm

I am not a kook.
But I do think that Vlad Putin ran WASH DC
from 2016 - 2020 from his underground lair 200
feet below the White House
 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
             
 

Xavier_Onassis » 01 May 2023, 12:59 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 12:59 pm

Your premise is false. If one concept is built on the other, and there is fraud in even one of the claims, no matter how small, then the whole research study is flawed. That's why they do peer reviews.

That is accurate. But how do you propose that all fraudulent articles be separated from those that are accurate?


 

Because it is peer reviewed. These fraudulent articles were never peer reviewed. They got retracted because real scientist, who know their ****, proved them to be false. 

If they did not pass the peer revue test, then they should be ignored.
What articles are you referring to?

Sumela » 01 May 2023, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 1:03 pm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
           

I wrote NO SUCH THING!

Xavier_Onassis » 01 May 2023, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 1:20 pm

 

Xavier_Onassis » 01 May 2023, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 1:20 pm

If they did not pass the peer revue test, then they should be ignored.
What articles are you referring to?

Well...evidently, according to the researchers, 20% of them. And if you are asking me to list the names of each article in the thousands of medical journals that are in that 20%, you can go pound sand. Read the study. It's right there in the OP with the link. 

Again, if they do not pass the peer revue, ignore them.

Xavier_Onassis » 01 May 2023, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 2:36 pm

Again, if they do not pass the peer revue, ignore them.

The problem is that they were published. Researchers use other research for their own research. They go right to the publications. The publications don't list the peer reviewed status, they are simply published for their work. How can they ignore them if they don't know which ones to ignore? 

Vegas » 01 May 2023, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 2:42 pm

The problem is that they were published. Researchers use other research for their own research. They go right to the publications. The publications don't list the peer reviewed status, they are simply published for their work. How can they ignore them if they don't know which ones to ignore?

Because they know, no doubt thanks to you(  ) that 20% are statistically incorrect, and because they are researchers and know how to check research.
 I can't think of what I am expected to agree or disagree with here.

Xavier_Onassis » 01 May 2023, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 2:58 pm

Because they know, no doubt thanks to you(   that 20% are statistically incorrect, and because they are researchers and know how to check research.
 I can't think of what I am expected to agree or disagree with here.

If it's published, it is supposed to be trusted. That's why they don't pull any crap off the internet. The fraud isn't realized until after the fact. 

Vegas » 01 May 2023, 3:01 pm » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 3:01 pm

If it's published, it is supposed to be trusted. That's why they don't pull any crap off the internet. The fraud isn't realized until after the fact.

To a actual real scientist, all research is subject to scrutiny.  Medical researchers are supposed to be actual real scientists.

Xavier_Onassis » 01 May 2023, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

01 May 2023, 11:41 am

"It" shows that 20% is false.
How does "it" qualify as a judge of this?

Anything Democrats call "science" is a complete and total propaganda lie.