Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,547 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Maybe not so much...


Sting Operation Reveals Science's Insane Fake News Problem

If someone applied to a top position at a company, you’d hope a hiring manager would at least Google the applicant to ensure they’re qualified. A group of researchers sent phony resumes to 360 scientific journals for an applicant whose Polish name translated to “Dr. Fraud.” And 48 journals happily appointed the fake doctor to their editorial board.

This sting operation was the first systematic analysis on editorial roles in science publishing, adding concrete evidence to a problem past stings have shed light on. There are a whole lot of “predatory” scientific journals out there, journals that take advantage of scientists’ need to produce articles by publishing anything for a fee, without checking to make sure the paper is actually new research, worth publishing, and not completely inaccurate.



https://gizmodo.com/sting-operation-reveals-sciences-insane-fake-news-probl-1793523135
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
Verification and credible fact checking is too expensive to do. There is a ton of disinformation to sift through, layers upon layers of false leads to deal with, etc, etc. Simple verification isn't too bad but getting to the core truth on a subject is worse than pulling teeth.

I've seen active ground combat and have credible awards for valor. In spite of that, the bad dreams I have are related to doing fact checking and verification - and other BS jobs related to finance and money. The work is that bad - and time consuming if done correctly.

Carnival or rats.

V.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
I'll add a little more to my previous post for you all to play with.

During the initial ebola outbreaks in Zaire, the disease swept through the countryside like wildfire. The local doctors were overwhelmed and were desperate to find some way to stem the tide.

In desperation, the local doctors noticed that there were always a handful of survivors after the disease swept through a given area. They decided to try doing transfusions from these survivors to the sick patients on the assumption that the survivors had antibodies in their system that would help sick patients.

Surprisingly, it worked! However, doctors from the UN discouraged the practice since it would deprive them of the chance to study the virus.

Now, try verifying that this actually happened....... and is the practice of doing transfusions credible? This has surfaced again during the current pandemic,..... so MAYBE it's a little easier to research,.... but for years this was painfully difficult to fact check or verify by conventional or unconventional means.

This is just a taste of the BS a person has to put up with during verification or fact checking.

Food for thought.

V.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,547 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
https://io9.gizmodo.com/fake-resear...RB6B5qPWt_5CNtXFKXwbk7vQkgSCXRCVFTs7jFP2uUSps

Fake Research Paper Based on Star Trek: Voyager's Worst Episode Was Published by a Scientific Journal

An anonymous biologist looking to expose how easy it was to get fake news into supposedly peer-reviewed scientific journals—inspired by a recent attempt that got a paper about Star Wars’ midi-chlorians published in three different journals—recently submitted a paper titled “Rapid Genetic and Developmental Morphological Change Following Extreme Celerity.” The author was listed as “Doctor Lewis Zimmerman,” which is actually the name of the holoengineer that programmed Voyager’s Emergency Medical Hologram.

The paper was essentially a recap of the events of “Threshold,” the godawful season two episode in which Voyager’s helmsman Tom Paris attempts to break the theoretical “Warp 10” speed barrier, something never done in Trek’s universe. Turns out, it’s for good reason, because apparently when you do reach the “extreme celerity” of Warp 10, you turn into a weird amphibian-person, capture your captain, evolve them into a weird amphibian-person, and then fully evolve into actual space salamanders and mate with each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,243 Posts
I belong to a listserv that focuses on waterfowl management concerns and one of the other members recently shared his experience with a predatory journal. After being solicited by said journal, he submitted a hilarious (by scientific standards) fake paper to them...it was a great example of how predatory journals work. I haven't yet published and hope to submit my research later this year, but it's my understanding that if a journal actually solicits your work, then it might not be a legitimate journal.

Something else to consider - in most specialized fields, everyone pretty much knows everyone else. Sure, students like myself are always new faces - but, we're attached to our mentors. I've been to two waterfowl management meetings as a student and presented research at one. I saw the same faces and read their names over the listserv. Plus, I've cited hundreds of papers authored by these same people. That makes it easy for me to know who is legit and who is not. The same would go for most fields of specialized research.

Another way a layman can determine if a journal is legitimate, is to simply search for it online. Google Scholar is a great tool and I use it regularly for research. Finding articles from a specific journal on there ought not to be too difficult, which will help determine if a journal is legitimate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,088 Posts
Turns out, it’s for good reason, because apparently when you do reach the “extreme celerity” of Warp 10, you turn into a weird amphibian-person, capture your captain, evolve them into a weird amphibian-person, and then fully evolve into actual space salamanders and mate with each other.
That is fun when it is happening but it is always awkward the next morning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
I belong to a listserv that focuses on waterfowl management concerns and one of the other members recently shared his experience with a predatory journal. After being solicited by said journal, he submitted a hilarious (by scientific standards) fake paper to them...it was a great example of how predatory journals work. I haven't yet published and hope to submit my research later this year, but it's my understanding that if a journal actually solicits your work, then it might not be a legitimate journal.

Something else to consider - in most specialized fields, everyone pretty much knows everyone else. Sure, students like myself are always new faces - but, we're attached to our mentors. I've been to two waterfowl management meetings as a student and presented research at one. I saw the same faces and read their names over the listserv. Plus, I've cited hundreds of papers authored by these same people. That makes it easy for me to know who is legit and who is not. The same would go for most fields of specialized research.

Another way a layman can determine if a journal is legitimate, is to simply search for it online. Google Scholar is a great tool and I use it regularly for research. Finding articles from a specific journal on there ought not to be too difficult, which will help determine if a journal is legitimate.
Great post with some very handy information.

Thanks for sharing!

V.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top