I've long said here that many top scientists have sold out for big
$$$$$$$$$ when it comes to putting their names to - to take just one
example - studies around Climate Change[tm] and it seems I was right
(as usual).
Just heard on BBC Radio 4 that there is a whole industry out there now
for printing academic papers with no value whatsoever, containing
mostly gibberish, solely for the purpose of allowing the author to
claim he's a published academic. Not only that, but for a few extra
bucks, anyone can get their "research" not only published, but
favorably peer-reviewed! So the next time anyone tells you they've had
peer-reviewed papers published, you'll know to take it with a pinch of
salt. This is basically just vanity publishing for wannabe academics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xdgd

And I checked on Google and there are umpteen organizations and
individuals offering this service. This *should* be a major scandal
but I'll wager nothing gets done to punish those crooks responsible.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:31:10 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>I've long said here that many top scientists have sold out for big
>$$$$$$$$$ when it comes to putting their names to - to take just one
>example - studies around Climate Change[tm] and it seems I was right
>(as usual).
>Just heard on BBC Radio 4 that there is a whole industry out there now
>for printing academic papers with no value whatsoever, containing
>mostly gibberish, solely for the purpose of allowing the author to
>claim he's a published academic. Not only that, but for a few extra
>bucks, anyone can get their "research" not only published, but
>favorably peer-reviewed! So the next time anyone tells you they've had
>peer-reviewed papers published, you'll know to take it with a pinch of
>salt. This is basically just vanity publishing for wannabe academics.
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xdgd
>
>And I checked on Google and there are umpteen organizations and
>individuals offering this service. This *should* be a major scandal
>but I'll wager nothing gets done to punish those crooks responsible.

All scams need an ultimate revenue source. What's this one? University
salaries?

But the "legitimate" scientific paper mill isn't much better. In many
fields, the research can't be reproduced.

And there is lots of plagiarism and, now, AI junk.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:29:30 -0700, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:31:10 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I've long said here that many top scientists have sold out for big
>>$$$$$$$$$ when it comes to putting their names to - to take just one
>>example - studies around Climate Change[tm] and it seems I was right
>>(as usual).
>>Just heard on BBC Radio 4 that there is a whole industry out there now
>>for printing academic papers with no value whatsoever, containing
>>mostly gibberish, solely for the purpose of allowing the author to
>>claim he's a published academic. Not only that, but for a few extra
>>bucks, anyone can get their "research" not only published, but
>>favorably peer-reviewed! So the next time anyone tells you they've had
>>peer-reviewed papers published, you'll know to take it with a pinch of
>>salt. This is basically just vanity publishing for wannabe academics.
>>
>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xdgd
>>
>>And I checked on Google and there are umpteen organizations and
>>individuals offering this service. This *should* be a major scandal
>>but I'll wager nothing gets done to punish those crooks responsible.
>
>All scams need an ultimate revenue source. What's this one? University
>salaries?

Not sure what you mean, John. The money comes from essentially
unqualified or partly qualified individuals who hope they can enhance
their standing or get a better job by boasting about having their
research published. No different in effect to those types who buy fake
degrees and doctorates from online suppliers.

>
>But the "legitimate" scientific paper mill isn't much better. In many
>fields, the research can't be reproduced.

Too true and the BBC article does venture to suggest this also.
>
>And there is lots of plagiarism and, now, AI junk.

AI gives a who new dimension to this plague of fakery.
>

On 21/03/2024 5:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> I've long said here that many top scientists have sold out for big
> $$$$$$$$$ when it comes to putting their names to - to take just one
> example - studies around Climate Change[tm] and it seems I was right
> (as usual).
> Just heard on BBC Radio 4 that there is a whole industry out there now
> for printing academic papers with no value whatsoever, containing
> mostly gibberish, solely for the purpose of allowing the author to
> claim he's a published academic. Not only that, but for a few extra
> bucks, anyone can get their "research" not only published, but
> favorably peer-reviewed! So the next time anyone tells you they've had
> peer-reviewed papers published, you'll know to take it with a pinch of
> salt. This is basically just vanity publishing for wannabe academics.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xdgd
>
> And I checked on Google and there are umpteen organizations and
> individuals offering this service. This *should* be a major scandal
> but I'll wager nothing gets done to punish those crooks responsible.

As usual, Cursitor Doom has got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

The Climate Change Denial propaganda machine has been desperate to get
papers published that cast doubt on the well-established scientific case
for anthropogenic global warming.

Ironically, the Climate Gate scandal, which was intended to "reveal" this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

showed up a climate change denial attempt to do this, which got the
corrupted editor fired,

Fred Pearce, (2010) The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about
Global Warming, Guardian Books; London.

Fred Pearce does document this, but he's a British science journalist
and didn't understand what was going on. Cursitor Doom is similarly
under-informed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 21/03/2024 8:29 am, john larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:31:10 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I've long said here that many top scientists have sold out for big
>> $$$$$$$$$ when it comes to putting their names to - to take just one
>> example - studies around Climate Change[tm] and it seems I was right
>> (as usual).
>> Just heard on BBC Radio 4 that there is a whole industry out there now
>> for printing academic papers with no value whatsoever, containing
>> mostly gibberish, solely for the purpose of allowing the author to
>> claim he's a published academic. Not only that, but for a few extra
>> bucks, anyone can get their "research" not only published, but
>> favorably peer-reviewed! So the next time anyone tells you they've had
>> peer-reviewed papers published, you'll know to take it with a pinch of
>> salt. This is basically just vanity publishing for wannabe academics.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xdgd
>>
>> And I checked on Google and there are umpteen organizations and
>> individuals offering this service. This *should* be a major scandal
>> but I'll wager nothing gets done to punish those crooks responsible.
>
> All scams need an ultimate revenue source. What's this one? University
> salaries?

The Heartlands Institute pays better.

> But the "legitimate" scientific paper mill isn't much better. In many
> fields, the research can't be reproduced.

Observational science can never be reproduced. You can often find
different ways of observing the same process, which is how Michael
Mann's "hockey stick" paper ended up getting replicate about a dozen
times with different proxies for historical temperatures.

The peer reviewed literature isn't perfect, but - like democracy - it is
a lot better than any of the alternatives.

> And there is lots of plagiarism and, now, AI junk.

There's always been some, but it has never been influential, and AI junk
isn't going to do any better.

If the work isn't worth citing, it doesn't get cited.

The median science author publishes just one paper. The world gets
changed by people who do rather better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 21/03/2024 9:37 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:29:30 -0700, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:31:10 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've long said here that many top scientists have sold out for big
>>> $$$$$$$$$ when it comes to putting their names to - to take just one
>>> example - studies around Climate Change[tm] and it seems I was right
>>> (as usual).
>>> Just heard on BBC Radio 4 that there is a whole industry out there now
>>> for printing academic papers with no value whatsoever, containing
>>> mostly gibberish, solely for the purpose of allowing the author to
>>> claim he's a published academic. Not only that, but for a few extra
>>> bucks, anyone can get their "research" not only published, but
>>> favorably peer-reviewed! So the next time anyone tells you they've had
>>> peer-reviewed papers published, you'll know to take it with a pinch of
>>> salt. This is basically just vanity publishing for wannabe academics.
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xdgd
>>>
>>> And I checked on Google and there are umpteen organizations and
>>> individuals offering this service. This *should* be a major scandal
>>> but I'll wager nothing gets done to punish those crooks responsible.
>>
>> All scams need an ultimate revenue source. What's this one? University
>> salaries?
>
> Not sure what you mean, John. The money comes from essentially
> unqualified or partly qualified individuals who hope they can enhance
> their standing or get a better job by boasting about having their
> research published. No different in effect to those types who buy fake
> degrees and doctorates from online suppliers.

I've got a couple of copies of other people's Ph.D. theses. I got them
because the content was of interest to me. A fake doctorate wouldn't
have been useful.

>> But the "legitimate" scientific paper mill isn't much better. In many
>> fields, the research can't be reproduced.
>
> Too true and the BBC article does venture to suggest this also.

The BBC piece is a broadcast talk, not an article, and it is well know
that the scientific literature contains a lot of less-than-useful
content. A scientific education does include training in reading the
literature with a sceptical eye. English language journalist rarely get
that training.
>>
>> And there is lots of plagiarism and, now, AI junk.
>
> AI gives a who new dimension to this plague of fakery.

Really? ChatGP and the like are just large language models, and produce
stuff that sounds like stuff that has been published before, which is
merely automated plagiarism.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney