The problem is that the universities encourage the behavior. Looks good on their bonafides.
2 Likes
That right there is why so many of us are skeptics of global warming papers. You don’t toe the party line you don’t get published.
3 Likes
What concerns me is not so much the fake AI papers themselves,
it is the fact that the universities are hiring and protecting blatant and obvious liars.
(Post 7 above)
Dr Jayati Sinha has had three papers retracted.
(her CV lists only 16)
Each one was written with one or more co-authors.
Each one had one or more “pal reviewers.”
Each one had one or more assigned referees.
(That’s at least ten guilty parties in all).
And yet Dr Sinha is not only firmly protected, she has been rewarded with becoming Dept Chair at Florida International University. Her laying-ass co-liars are also still employed and still treated as decent honorable authorities on their topics.
Maybe she should be fired and brought up on charges, face possible jail time and be required to return 100% of every dollar she made since telling her first lie. (Whatever would happen to someone who lied in the the accounting industry, the car repair industry etc. should happen to her.)
LOL nice word choice.
:bona fide: means honest, accurate or in good faith.
What the industry has is thousands and thousands of people with mala fides, and they won’t police themselves effectively. The lying fraudsters, even when revealed, almost never face charges, firing etc…
My guess? They won’t punish the liars because lying is so widespread in academia they are afraid the public will see how bad the industry is: no better than a collection of Enron accountants trying to set government policy.
It’s the bigger problem, to be sure. Lots of folks talk about AI or fake journals as somehow that is the existential threat, but no one cares about those papers. They drive nothing in the real world and only cater to the schlubs that aren’t connected. Do you think that Fauci needs journals like that? He doesn’t. He gets NEJM or Nature approval just with his name recognition. And those are the big journals, the ones that move the narrative.
Hell, I know Docs who have several textbooks published where they didn’t write a single damn word of it, they get assistants, fellows, students etc. to write it. But they get the checks from the publisher. Hell, I have written a few chapters of books and never saw a dime for it, some other Doc did. And writing medical book chapters SUCKS. Hell of a lotta work.
This is the real dark world of academia. Prominent scientists do almost nothing but get all the credit while real scientists with novel ideas get struck down or die in anonymity unless they find a prominent scientist to “sponsor” their work and allow them to take credit for their work.
1 Like
They should care about the pattern of fraudulent behavior of the people who “wrote” them and the people who “refereed” them etc…
Every Dr who wrote a fraudulent paper should be stripped of his degree, stripped of his job and brought up on charges.
Every “reviewer and referee” should be investigated as to
- "Why do you a have a lifetime pattern of using your position as a co-conspirator, in a fake fraudulent manner pretending to referee things and then not actually doing it?
- “Since you obviously cover-up fraud, why should you ever have a position of trust? Ever be employed again? Ever receive pubic money again?”
10,000 last year. 11,000 this year…
I wonder how many post on this board cited some of these “studies” as their evidence for this-or-that argument.
For that matter, how many government assertions cited “the science” in some of those studies.
As you may have noticed, I am less concerned about the studies themselves and more concerned with the fact that those lying con artists are getting jobs and promotions based on their known acts of fraud.
The m/l random case I have been using, Dr Jayna Sinha of FIU published some bogus studies about such things as ambient temperatures during in-person auctions and its effect on price.
Who cares what the right temperature is? I don’t.
I am more concerned with the fact that this known and proven liar got a job, became department head etc., where she presumably continues to lie to her students, her colleagues and in her role as a public policy advocate.
1 Like
Seems some profiling of the papers and journals that publish these nonsensical mumbo jumbo should clearly spot most of the frauds initially. Such as papers authored and published from china, india and developing third world countries.
He’s definitely revealing all the quiet parts. Much to my pleasure of course. lol
2 Likes
I hope my cannabis sources are still published. Don’t fail us now, NIH! 
2 Likes
There are a couple of members of this forum conspicuous in their absence from this thread.
3 Likes
CASE STUDY
(This is an example of a retracted paper. My comments & insight will appear on a second post to follow)
When researchers want to express the degree of difference between two groups, they sometimes rely on something called a “Cohen’s d.”
It has been way too long since my last math or stat course so I won’t try to explain it, but a contributor on Pubpeer illustrates it this way in 2019:
He was discussing a study by two professors, (Jayati Sinha, who holds the Macy’s Retailing Professorship at Florida International University and Rajesh Bagchi, of Virginia Tech University) who found a significant correlation between ambient temperature and auction behavior. (Low temp = 67°F, High temp = 77°F.) Having been reviewed by at least two other people (at least one hand-selected and at least one assigned) the study appeared in Journal of Marketing in 2019. LINK
In that study, the degrees of difference the researchers found were large, very large in comparison to the examples above.
.
.
.
Hat’s off to the contributor at PubPeer
When the data is expressed that way it clearly raises some questions.
Eventually, a reader contacted the Journal of Marketing:
.
.
An investigation ensued and the article was retracted on 08/20/2021
End of Case Study
COMMENTS on the Case Study Above
Well, an investigation occurred and the study was retracted.
End of story right?
The multibillion dollar industry polices itself, right?
Besides, the study is pretty mundane and unimpactful so no harm done, right?
Not exactly.
1.) That retraction was neither the first, nor the last for Dr. Jayata Sinha. (I previously referred to her a a dept chair. she is not.)
In addition to that study being retracted, three other studies by Dr. Sinh have been retracted. One on 03/05/2016, one on 11/09/2021, and one on 05/27/2022.
2.) Each of those studies has one or more co-authors including
- Jing Wang, U of Iowa
- Pronobesh Banerjee, Winston-Salem U
- Promothesh Chatterjee, U of Kansas
- Rajesh Bagchi, Virginia Tech
- Randall L Rose, U of South Carolina
And each of the four retracted papers has at least one “pal reviewer” and one independently-assigned referee. Meaning, in addition to Dr. Sinah ~13 people, (co-authors to reviewers to referees) signed-off on these papers.
There may be only one big liar here (Dr Sinah) but why were 13 other people asleep at the switch? That’s a lot of people. Being a sleep at the switch seems to be the industry norm.
3.) Dr Sinha still has her job. The official FIU link below lists her as being on the staff and notably, she lists at least two of her retracted papers among the (total 16) publications that appear on the page,
https://business.fiu.edu/about/directory/profile/sinhaj
I’m thinking
"How can we trust this woman to do anything like
- lecturing to students,
- publicly advocating for gov’t policy
- doing further research etc.?
This woman should be fired and perhaps even brought up on charges as a repeat for-profit con artist"
I am also thinking her numerous con-conspirators should also be very closely examined. (a colonoscopy) They cannot be trusted to do their jobs judiciously. At the very least they are like the Walmart employee slacker who claims “I did this task , boss” and did not actually do it. They lack integrity and need to be held to a higher standard than a McWorker making McFries.
Dont know if theres a universal standard but many colleges, institution of higher education and research institute already established their own academic reseach ethics policies.
Perhaps if any egregious knownly use of fraud in violation of these research ethic policies, the institutions and colleges will lose their accreditations permanently
Well apparently when institutions do their self-assessments for accreditation purposes they find themselves A-1 ok. (No surprise there.)
It remains pretty clear that use of papermills is widespread.
Why would a person publish via a papermill if doing so leads to nothing, (no job offer, no promotion etc.?) Obviously one would not.
– Ergo, we know that academics receive some positive benefit from publishing via papermills.
Who is in a position to handout these benefits (jobs, promotions etc.?) Obviously not your local grocer, your local man on the street etc…
– Ergo, we can surmise that mainstream academia, (even those who have never published via papermills) is willfully giving jobs promotions etc. to people who publish at papermills etc…
Note also that https://retractionwatch.com/ maintains a database of retracted academic papers. It does not claim it’s database is complete or comprehensive, just a list of those retractions that came to its attention.
Their database contains over 49,000 retractions, but (only) 4,432 of those were retracted for being the product of papermills. The other 44,000+ were retracted for such reasons as
- Results Not Reproducible,
- Unreliable results,
- Data not Provided,
- Falsification/Fabrication of Data
- Falsification/Fabrication of Results
or, (my favorite) - Fake Peer Review. (there is no hiding when you’ve done that one. There is no wiggle room, or “lost notes” for that one. It’s a flat-out lie.)
EX Paolo Gardoni, an engineering professor with U of Illinois Urbana has had two papers retracted because of “Fake Peer Review”
He remains on staff there, active there, even heads up one of their research centers.
The university website notes
"He has received over $50 million in research funding from multiple national and international agencies including the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Qatar National Research Funds (QNRF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Hopefully this leads to less worship of human beings and more dismissal of the know-it-alls who think they’re actually learning anything from hasty internet searches in the heat of an online argument.
For example, edumacated people have been caught saying things like this out loud:
Looks pretty common to me
I wonder
- Did all these researchers keep their jobs?
- Is this the first time for all of them? Or were there telltale signs that were (willfully) ignored by the people who interviewed them for hiring and promotion?
.
.
.
.
June 6, 2024
June 5
(cited nearly 2,500 times)
March 20
Feb 7
Link1:
Link 2:
Link 3:
Link 4
1 Like
