Entertaining, but clearly very necessary.
> 5. Joy MP, Joy DD, Joy TP (2006) Rabies outbreak in Pokémon daycare center. Infectious Diseases 33: 377-378
> 9. Mazzetti D (2016) Fraud in exercise science journals: Do you even peer review? Archives of Broscience 112(7): 896-902.
> 11. Crichton M (2013) Origin and Defeat of the Andromeda Strain. Journal of Cryptovirology 116(6): 1360-1363.
> 18. Joy SM (2006) Pangolins do not cure cancer any other diseases. Journal of Please Stop Eating Endangered Species 21: 420-430.
and on and on and on XD
> 28. Stromberg J (2014) ‘Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List’ is an Actual Science Paper Accepted by a Journal. Vox 21: 10-11.
(See also HN discussions on the abovementioned paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22052019, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11098655)
> When I asked the author how this happened, he failed to see any problem with citing a paper he never read while writing a paper outside his field, and was unaware of the difference between open access and predatory journals.
On the one hand, it's demoralizing that we've reached this point where misinformation spreads at the same rate as good information. On the other, it does seem like a decent way to expose predatory journals.
Could this method be extended to other fields?
"I typically ask recruiters to point out which of these are pokemon" https://imgur.com/gallery/r0SEEoh
Onix is clearly a unix-like or linux distribution that's shaped around some software with first letter O (Opera? OpenOffice? I dunno), in addition to a Pokémon.
That's about two generations too many for me to be able to know :P
> ADABAS was NoSQL from a time when there was no SQL. The technology now is owned by Software AG. "Software AG: We're not sure what we do either."
Damn, I seem to get only half of them right, not better than random chance !
EDIT : Ok, 59% correct. (Eventually you get a 'victory' screen.)
This has always been true. It's a fundamental part of the human story, an emergent property that arises from the cost to produce misinformation compared to the cost to discover the truth.
Yup, I recently got fooled there...
Sleazy conferences are quite common too. I think this is a deeper, broader problem than many scientists would care to admit.
That said, since people shouldn't just believe whatever they read, even if it's published in Nature or Science or something, it's a tad redundant to point out that papers published in academic formatting can be complete nonsense.
A solid peer-review can help reduce quality issues, but it doesn't mean that whatever's published is true, reliable, or trustworthy. It's weird that so many folks seem to think that journal articles are gospel. That's just not what peer-review does.
Related: People shouldn't believe things just because they're written in math or Latin.
> American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research is a peer reviewed open access journal dedicated to publish (sic) high-quality research in all areas of the medical, pharmaceutical, health and engineering sciences.
Dammit, now I want to read the Gotham Forensics Quarterly paper.
Yes, it's sad, you will not be able to detect small effects because they will have a very hard time getting reproduced above noise level, but there is just no alternative.
Singular papers can do real harm, as we can see from a whole movement of "vaccines cause autism" stemming from one fallacious paper.
And even without going to those extremes, it's clear that confirmation bias will cause people to find even a single paper confirming their scientifically bankrupt ideas as a way to bolster and legitimize their campaigns to spread harmful misinformation.
> Singular papers can do real harm, as we can see from a whole movement of "vaccines cause autism" stemming from one fallacious paper.
The vast, vast majority of people don't read the papers you like either. That includes the "vaccines cause autism" movement; 0% of members have read any related paper.
You mention some real problems, but they aren't addressed by the peer review system.
This is not really spoofing, this is just plain fraud, right?
When they fill papers full of jargon, data that doesn't make sense, crazy political posturing so that the paper reads as something fantastical - and it gets by - that's a problem.
But this seems to be merely a real concern that it's quite a bit of work to reproduce scientific results and that someone doing a quick review of a paper has no material way of validating 'everything'.
The paper 'looked promising' because it was promising, assuming those sending it in weren't completely making everything up.
You could make a fake passport that might fool a lot of people, that doesn't mean the system is broken.
Science maybe has problems but I'm not sure this one strikes at it very well.
> Some would argue that editors cannot recognize Pokémon names, but lines in the text such as “a journal publishing this paper does not practice peer review and must therefore be predatory” or “this invited article is in a predatory journal that likely does not practice peer review” would have tipped off anyone who bothered to read the articles. These papers did not slip in under the radar; they were welcomed in blindly.
It doesn't matter if the data is made up if what it signifies is complete nonsense anyway. If their goal was to commit fraud they would obfuscate their deceit, not make it a google search away from clearly being a hoax. Your definition of fraud is so broad that it removes any responsibility of due diligence from the reader, which is the entire point of having a peer review process in the first place.