Beware of "Scientific" Studies

Before buying into the latest study splashed across the headlines, better check the source.

In an increasingly troubling academic trend, companies dubbed “paper mills” are selling fake studies to researchers who need publications to keep their jobs or advance their careers.

These fake scientific papers are being published in real journals at an alarming rate, according to a study published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The number of fake papers doubled every 1.5 years between 2016 and 2020, and there are now tens of thousands in the scientific record, according to the research.

The trend exploits vulnerabilities in the publication process, and major publishers like Wiley and Taylor & Francis have had to retract hundreds or thousands of papers at once, and have even shut down some journals overrun by paper mills, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

Be informed, not misled.

Outcome-based "science."

WSJ says, "A growing tide of fake papers is flooding the scientific record and proliferating faster than current checks can rid them from the system, scientists warn."

The source of the trouble is “paper mills,” businesses or individuals that charge fees to publish fake studies in legitimate journals under the names of desperate scientists whose careers depend on their publishing record.

In other words, "fake science" is being manufactured to confirm desired outcomes.

You want to put a particular brand out of business, fund a "scientific" study whose outcome will justify destroying and eliminating the brand.

The rate of fake papers generated by these operators roughly doubled every 1.5 years between 2016 and 2020, according to a PNAS study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“The entire structure of science could collapse if this is left unaddressed,” said study author Luís Amaral, a physicist at Northwestern University.

Paper mills look for weak links, such as lax verification protocols, in the typically rigorous publication machinery, then exploit those to place hundreds of fabricated studies with vulnerable journals or publishers, according to scientist investigators who have been tracking and cataloging their work.

The College Fix reports that the rise of ‘paper mills’ has produced thousands of fake scientific papers published in real journals. 

Ian Kingsbury, director of research at Do No Harm, told The College Fix the problem does not fall solely on dishonest or lazy researchers.

“There’s very low entry standards to becoming an academic publisher,” he said in an interview. “There are journals that are essentially fraudulent or even sometimes predatory.”

The problem doesn’t appear to be slowing down. 

“Systematic research fraud has outpaced corrective measures and will only keep accelerating,” wrote Retraction Watch after examining the PNAS study.

Kingsbury said that with the paper mill problem, “we are mostly talking about … low-quality, poorly cited journals that don’t have much cultural cache.” 

In contrast, he told The Fix, the “ideological capture” of leading medical journals by radical gender ideology and DEI is a more significant problem.

"These prominent journals have a greater influence and are harder to correct compared to paper mill-produced literature," he said.

Whereas AI and other detection strategies may be employed to flag paper mill-produced research, “there’s really no obvious levers that can be pulled for [prominent, radical] journals to correct themselves,” Kingsbury said.

The rise of ‘paper mills’ has produced 32,700 fake scientific papers published in real journals. 

Takeaway. 

Only 6% of Republicans are scientists. 

It's becoming clearer that ideology drives "discovery". A scientist's worldview matters.

One of the most serious fallacies of modern thought is the widespread notion that Biblical Christianity is in conflict with true science and, therefore, that genuine scientists cannot believe the Bible. The scientific method is built on the empirical testing of hypotheses, and since creation and other biblical doctrines cannot be tested in the laboratory, they are considered nonscientific and should be taken strictly on faith. Furthermore, it is commonly believed that the Bible contains many scientific errors. At the very most, it is contended, a scientist may be able to accept the spiritual teachings of the Bible if he wishes, but never its scientific and historical teachings.

But "science" was born in a spiritual context.

As a matter of fact, authorization for the development of science and technology was specifically commissioned in God’s mandate to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:26-28), and many early scientists, especially in England and America, viewed it in just this way. The study of the world and its processes is really, as Kepler and other great scientists have maintained, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him,” and should be approached reverently and humbly.

This is a partial list of some of the great scientists of the past who viewed their calling as 'thinking God's thoughts after Him.

Creationist Scientists by Discipline

• Antiseptic Surgery: Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
• Bacteriology: Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
• Calculus: Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
• Celestial Mechanics: Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
• Chemistry: Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
• Comparative Anatomy: Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
• Computer Science: Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
• Dimensional Analysis: Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
• Dynamics: Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
• Electronics: John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)
• Electrodynamics: James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
• Electro-Magnetics: Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
• Energetics: Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
• Entomology Of Living Insects: Henri Fabre (1823-1915)
• Field Theory: Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
• Fluid Mechanics: George Stokes (1819-1903)
• Galactic Astronomy: William Herschel (1738-1822)
• Gas Dynamics: Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
• Genetics: Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
• Glacial Geology: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
• Gynecology: James Simpson (1811-1870)
• Hydraulics: Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)
• Hydrography” Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
• Hydrostatics: Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
• Ichthyology: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
• Isotopic Chemistry: William Ramsay (1852-1916)
• Model Analysis: Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
• Natural History: John Ray (1627-1705)
• Non-Euclidean Geometry: Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866)
• Oceanography: Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
• Optical Mineralogy: David Brewster (1781-1868)
• Paleontology: John Woodward (1665-1728)
• Pathology: Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)
• Physical Astronomy: Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
• Reversible Thermodynamics: James Joule (1818-1889)
• Statistical Thermodynamics: James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
• Stratigraphy: Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)
• Systematic Biology: Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
• Thermodynamics: Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
• Thermokinetics: Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)
• Vertebrate Paleontology: Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

Dr. Fauci is not on this list.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Beware. Be Prayerful.