"Compromised science" news/opines (includes retractions, declining academic standards, pred-J, etc)

Notes on #800↑ above

¹ It remains unclear what to make of the incomplete annotation; over two weeks later and the annotations remain unposted; maybe they're print-edition only.

² see "On Discussing Religion" #1↗ (2021), "Think of what that actually means; it's actually pretty straigtforward: Theological method relied less on what the predecessors said, and more on what any believer thought obvious. Neither, as such, is reliable." By comparison, the inherited results of science are generally expected to be much more reliable.​

Noll, Mark. America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Stewart-Williams, Steve. "We Can't Just Lie About Sex Differences". Skeptic. 4 August 2026. Skeptic.com. 20 August 2026. https://www.skeptic.com/article/is-evolutionary-psychology-pseudoscience-sex-differences/

Wilson, Edward O. "Karl Marx was right, socialism works". 27 March 1997. froes.dds.nl. Archived 4 January 2012. https://web.archive.org/web/20120104092420/http://www.froes.dds.nl/WILSON.htm
 
When misconduct disappears into university bureaucracy
https://universityaffairs.ca/opinion/when-misconduct-disappears-into-university-bureaucracy/

EXCERPTS: Universities have become very good at creating policies and procedures to deal with misconduct. These are operationalized through equity offices, research integrity processes, ombudspersons, harassment policies, codes of conduct, and training modules for almost every conceivable concern. This looks like robust governance. But it can also make serious problems harder to see.

[...] Having been involved in numerous disciplinary and governance processes, and having spent decades working on conflicts of interest, my experience is that misconduct rarely presents itself neatly: one complainant, one policy, one office, one resolution. Instead, it appears as behaviours spread across relationships, roles and administrative categories. (MORE - details)
_
 
When scientists become commercial influencers
https://www.acsh.org/news/2026/09/08/when-scientists-become-commercial-influencers-50324

EXCERPT: In recent years, trash science has proliferated. Various groups attempt to monitor fraudulent work that escapes peer-review censors, including Retraction Watch, under the aegis of The Center for Scientific Integrity.

[...] When scientists leave the scientific arena for the commercial arena, using the prestige of peer-reviewed research to influence consumers about products, they begin to resemble those pesky influencers ... While there are legal protections to protect the public from misleading commercial claims, these protections seem inadequate in this situation, and influencers who enjoy the halo of scientific status have escaped inquiry, putting the public at risk.

[...] As litigation involving science has increased, the many scientific “guns for hire” have conscripted scientific publications to publicize their litigation-driven positions. To be sure, the law doesn’t favor litigation-driven research.

That hasn’t stopped paid experts from using the scientific press as a podium for their work, later referenced in court to legitimize their personal (or paid) conclusions. As long as the research, at least superficially, mimics the scientific method, this has been allowed, and attempts by defendants to penalize these researchers for work disparaging their products on the grounds of slander or defamation have failed... (MORE - details)
_
 
PeerJ retracts study that secretly observed tourists’ reactions to snakes
https://retractionwatch.com/2026/09/10/peerj-snakes-vipers-retraction-ethical-concerns/

EXCERPT: The journal put an expression of concern on the paper on Aug. 4 after having been “made aware that there are concerns regarding the ethical oversight of this study.” Following an investigation, the journal determined “the ethical approval was not, in fact, in compliance with PeerJ requirements” and retracted the study on August 21.

The retraction notice does not specify the nature of the ethical concerns. Mark Robinson, a senior communications manager at Taylor & Francis, which acquired PeerJ in 2024, said: “our position is set out in the Retraction Notice, and we do not have anything further to add.” (MORE - details)
_
 
His model was built to detect voter fraud. Now it’s testing the limits of election trust.
https://www.votebeat.org/national/2...ance-walter-mebane-2024-election-fraud-model/

Inside the “perfect storm” that put Walter Mebane Jr.’s work in the hands of a movement to question the 2024 election results...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Experiment: How easy is it to buy a research paper on the black market?
https://news.err.ee/1610129869/experiment-how-easy-is-it-to-buy-a-research-paper-on-the-black-market

Paper mills are making it easier than ever for researchers to buy authorship of bogus academic papers, fueling concerns that mounting pressure to publish is undermining research integrity. [...] Let it be said that ERR's editorial team does not advocate using the services of paper mills. Paper mills are fraudulent operations that are wholly at odds with the principles of research ethics and using their services can, in the worst case, result in criminal penalties. Our sole aim was to demonstrate just how absurdly easy it is to get in touch with a paper mill.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Why retracted articles can have an influential afterlife—and what to do about it
https://academic.oup.com/stcltm/article/15/9/szag080/8787662?login=false

ABSTRACT: Retractions of published journal articles are an increasingly common means by which the research community ensures the quality and integrity of publications and addresses research misconduct missed during pre-publication peer review. Retractions are intended to notify the public of issues that undermine the integrity of these publications so that readers will not rely on their findings and conclusions.

Continued citation and other uses of these publications without acknowledging their retracted status are therefore problematic and suggest shortcomings in retraction processes. In this commentary, we use the examples of retracted articles published in this journal to outline ways in which retracted articles can maintain an influential afterlife in the academic literature, online materials from non-profit organizations and private businesses, and responses from generative artificial intelligence.

Given that this ongoing influence compounds the harms of these publications, we recommend changes in how publishers manage article retractions. These changes include ensuring that article retraction notices are maintained when journal publishing agreements change, increasing the visibility of retractions, and notifying scholars and members of the public when an article they reference is retracted. While these changes will make article retractions more effective, there is a continued need to limit the publication of studies that violate the requirements of research integrity.
_
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top