• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Ironically, it will only get worse from journals and publishers cutting deals with LLM companies.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Its probably more to do with the emergence of LLMs and the growth in inequality. For what you said to be true would imply scientific journals are working harder, which is hard to imagine.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    There are two kinds of people, the kind who’ll read this and think, “This is science working”, and others who’ll think “Well, you can’t trust science”.

    • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 days ago

      No there are three. You missed the guy grumbling in the corner about academia being in shambles (in the US at least)

      • vzq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I’m optimistic. I think we’re at the beginning of the self-correction stage of the reproducibility crisis.

        It’s not the end. It’s not even the beginning of the end. But it could very well be the end of the beginning.

        • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Something about potential wide scale fraud came out recently about a prominent Alzheimer’s researcher. This article covers it quite well: https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-finding-neuroscientist-eliezer-masliah-papers-under-suspicion

          It’s grim, especially when considering the real human cost that fraud in biomedical research has. Despite this, like you, I am also optimistic. This article outlines some of how the initial concerns about this researcher was raised, and how the analysis of his work was done. A lot of it seems pretty unorthodox. For example, one of the people who contributed to this work was a “non-scientist” forensic image expert, who goes by the username Cheshire on the forum PubPeer (his real name is known and mentioned in the article, but I can’t remember it).

        • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Oh I agree! I actually have another comment in this thread where I said I think that more people are excited about uncovering fraudulent work than ever before imo.

          • vzq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            in academia, crimes against scientific integrity are considered particularly heinous. The dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious violations are members of an elite squad known as the Ph.D students. These are their stories.

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    Ever since tobacco campaign of doubt, the sciencetific community was slowly destroyed by the corporatist regimes.

    Internet is exposing these clowns finay but much damage has been done

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Science and technology are developed to serve hegemony, not humanity, not even the researchers themselves.

    These workers are just trying to survive under a brutal capitalist regime like anybody else.

  • nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    Hmm. So is it actually the number of fraudullent papers that’s up, or is it the number of frauds that get caught?

    • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Probably both considering that many people need these studies to return results to continue getting funded. At the same time, more academics than ever are excited about uncovering fraudulent work (imo).