‘TrUsT tHe ScIeNcE!’ – Study Retractions Up 13,650% in 22 Years.

[Ptarmigan]

‘TrUsT tHe ScIeNcE!’ – Study Retractions Up 13,650% in 22 Years.
https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/08/10/trust-the-science-study-retractions-up-13650-in-22-years/

The number of scientific papers retracted annually rose from just 40 in 2000 to almost 5,500 in 2022, representing a whopping 13,650% change over the past 22 years, with researchers estimating an astonishing 100,000 would have to be withdrawn every year with more thorough vetting.

Delivering a blow to the “trust the science” cheerleaders, Retraction Watch’s co-founders Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus detail the alarming issues with modern science for the left-wing Guardian newspaper.

The surge in bogus papers is driven in part by the fact that scientists are often “required… to publish papers in order to earn and keep jobs or to be promoted,” which leads to some turning to so-called “paper mills” that “sell everything from authorships to entire manuscripts to researchers who need to publish lest they perish.”

Only around a fifth of retractions are a result of “honest error,” Oransky and Marcus note, highlighting serious misconduct cases such as that of Joachim Boldt, a German anesthesiologist whose falsified data on an ineffective blood substitute was once widely cited and led to many people being harmed.

The experts get it wrong.

Retraction Watch
https://retractionwatch.com/

[ADsOutburst]

The surge in bogus papers is driven in part by the fact that scientists are often “required… to publish papers in order to earn and keep jobs or to be promoted,” which leads to some turning to so-called “paper mills” that “sell everything from authorships to entire manuscripts to researchers who need to publish lest they perish.”

Perverse incentives create problems? You don't say.

[FlaGator]

See who is funding the research behind the papers and you can probably guess without reading the papers what the findings will be.

[SVPete]

The surge in bogus papers is driven in part by the fact that scientists are often “required… to publish papers in order to earn and keep jobs or to be promoted,” which leads to some turning to so-called “paper mills” that “sell everything from authorships to entire manuscripts to researchers who need to publish lest they perish.”

This has been an issue for decades, and certainly results in lots of sloppiness and fluff. Another - more recent and growing - is politics-driven "studies" in which the conclusion is written before any "data" is selected/fabricated for pretzellation. "Studies" like that are rancid sausage.

[Eupher]

Well, with all the garbage that's generated - today, in the recent past, and even decades ago, can this mean we can be at least a LITTLE confident in the final analysis - retraction of said garbage?

Think about the garbage still lying in the Halls of Science if there WEREN'T any effort at all to retract the trash?

Might be at least a bit of a silver lining.

Bottom line, people are going to generate trash. That isn't going to stop, especially when they're forced to generate "studies" to support the POV of the people who are writing the checks.

The entire "glowbull warming" pile of excrement was founded on the principal of "scientists" writing "studies" to support the leftists insisting on this lie.