Is science broken?

One creative attempt to estimate how widespread such dishonesty really is involves comparisons between fields of varying “hardness.” The author, Daniele Fanelli, theorized that the farther from physics one gets, the more freedom creeps into one’s experimental methodology, and the fewer constraints there are on a scientist’s conscious and unconscious biases. If all scientists were…

A scientific look at bad science

This is why replication is so vital, wouldn’t you agree Paul? A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 2,047 retractions of biomedical and life-sciences articles and found that just 21.3 percent stemmed from straightforward error, while 67.4 percent resulted from misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4 percent) and plagiarism…

Publisher retracts papers due to fabricated peer reviews

I’m not sure why I keep posting about these episodes, as they have become depressingly familiar. A major publisher of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of “fabricated” peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications. [,…] Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, the co-editors of Retraction…

Professor spoofs Google Scholar to boost citation rate

I was wondering when this would happen. The article ignores, however, the entire mechanism that allows GS to work: your citing articles are listed, so anyone can check out your citation sources, which is exactly what happened here! So rather than evidence that GS is flawed, the incident shows that it works as intended. Beall…