pEEr ReViEwEd!
Yes.
…
your agenda is as well. Consider most papers have multiple professors co authoring we’ll keep it conservative and say 2. Thats 42,000 professors engaging in fraud just in the last 2 years and that doesn’t include the peer review.
Well then, I hope acedemia learns from their mistake.
Their mistake
believing that when paper mills publishing fraud-science are so widespread everybody knows about them, the best thing to do is honor, respect, hire and reward the blatantly lying dishonest fraudsters who publish there.
“Hey, let’s hire a bunch of known fraudster scum bucket liars, give them lifetime positions pretend they are telling the truth and then accuse anyone who disagrees with them is anti-science.” —> is very wrong & I hope they learn from that mistake.
1 Like
And intentionally missing the point. “Peer reviewed”, much like “Hahvad” is meaningless and has been for some time.
1 Like
You must be joking.
1 Like
I know you display the usual level of disregard for science but how did we get here if not for study and scientists who are people who study their craft.
They use machines and stuff who else will do it.
We once thought we could fall off the earth science doesn’t work unless we are constantly wrong.
Luck. The Dao. Divine Design.
Go ahead publish a fraudulent paper claiming that is “science.”
There are even paper mills who will accept that fraudulent work as “science,”
and people here who think you should get a lifetime job based on that fraudulent work.
.
.
.
Later when honest people point out your fraudulent work was fraudulent, those same folks will accuse the truth-tellers of being “anti-science” and “having an agenda.”
(Totally crazy levels of cognitive dissonance.)
1 Like
Are you concerned about how many wrong studies it might take to get right a cure for cancer say.
Those who are wrong who previously claim to be right wont say they are wrong.
nope.
And you know that too.
C’mon try the truth.
It won’t kill you.
1 Like
Fake papers
Fake papers
Fake papers
Fake papers
(Not “Oh I tried my best but I got it wrong. Being accidentally wrong is part of the process.”)
Fake papers
Fake papers
Fake papers
(Not, “Oh they were correct at the time but needed to be updated.”)
Fake papers
Fake papers
Fake papers
Fake fraudulent phony and made it through the peer review process (that all academe knows is a joke) and were published in papermills (that all of academe knows are widespread.)
My question is why are you so completely and totally married to trying to rehabilitate these fake papers
Does admitting they are fake harm your agenda?
SOURCE (apparently a reprint from Nature)
My mother used to say a man that never made mistakes never made anything.
What did she say about people who deliberately fake papers
- or assigned referees who miss the fact that they are fakes?
- or the colleges who hire them knowing that they published in papermills?
1 Like
Fake papers are bad. Fake paper writers should be punished. Do you agree with the rest of the IFL headline that their retraction is a good sign for the scientific community?
I believe it is a tiny almost meaningless beginning of good thing . . . meaningless until
1.) the fraudsters are thrown out of the universities
(same as they would to you or me or President Trump. Lying-ass college professors are not above the law)
and
2) the fraudsters are brought up on charges
and,
3) the universities apologize and explain why they hired people knowing they published at paper mills, while refusing to hire people who did not publish at such disreputable paper mills.
and
4) the universities write a letter of apology to every honest applicant they rejected explaining why they knowingly hired a fraudster
and
5) the universities punish everyone involved in knowingly hiring fraudsters and, investigate everyone who reviewed those papers
They aren’t mistakes.
2 Likes
