Faking It?

Science is an approach depending on the honesty and meticulousness of its practioners. Examples of cheating and shoddy work can be found throughout the history of science. They often became notorious. We are currently, however, facing a 'tidal wave' of fake research papers (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point). China was the origin of this current 'pandemic' of sham science. There, young doctors and scientists were required to publish scientific papers to get promotion. So-called commercial 'paper mills' started supplying fabricated data for publication in China's journals. This practise has since spread to India; Iran; Russia; former Soviet Union states and Eastern Europe. 'Paper mill' papers are not subject to rigorous peer review, as was supposed to be the 'gold standard'. There have also been examples of editors being bribed or agents of 'paper mills' getting on to editorial boards of 'science' journals. When identified as bogus, articles are generally 'retracted' by journals. In 2013, there were over 1000 retractions. In 2022 and 2023, the numbers had climbed to more than 4000 and 10,000, respectively. Of the 2023 figure, more than 8000 retractions were in journals published by Hindawi, a subsidiary of the John Wiley organisation. Wiley is a mainstream publisher of science in the US and Europe. The association is consequently very damaging. The growth of fake papers is obviously a serious challenge to science. It drives conspiracy 'theories', like the claimed ability of the veterinary deworming agent, Ivermectin, to cure Covid19 infections. It also makes it increasingly difficult to do proper science. Often, scientists do meta-analyses on published data, to evaluate potentials of new drugs or treatments. Knowing which studies to leave out, can be problematic. Public belief in science is also likely to be further challenged. Perhaps that's how some people like it?