The point about 0.04% is not that it's low, it's that it should be much higher. Getting even obviously fraudulent papers retracted is difficult and the image duplications are being found by unpaid volunteers, not via some comprehensive process so the numbers are lower bounds, not upper. You can find academic fraud in bulk with a tool as simple as grep and yet papers found that way are typically not retracted.
Example, select the tortured phrases section of this database. It's literally nothing fancier than a big regex:
"A novel approach on heart disease prediction using optimized hybrid deep learning approach", published in Multimedia Tools and Applications.
This paper has been run through a thesaurus spinner yielding garbage text like "To advance the expectation exactness of the anticipated heart malady location show" (heart disease -> heart malady). It also has nothing to do with the journal it's published in.
Now you might object that the paper in question comes from India and not an R1 American university, which is how you're defining reputable. The journal itself does, though. It's edited by an academic in the Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, which is an R1. It also has many dozens of people with the title of editor at other presumably reputable western universities like Brunel in the UK, the University of Salerno, etc:
Clearly, none of the so-called editors of the journal can be reading what's submitted to it. Zombie journals run by well known publishers like Spring Nature are common. They auto-publish blatant spam yet always have a gazillion editors at well known universities. This stuff is so basic both generation and detection predate LLMs entirely, but it doesn't get fixed.
Then you get into all the papers that aren't trivially fake but fake in advanced undetectable ways, or which are merely using questionable research practices... the true rate of retraction if standards were at the level laymen imagine would be orders of magnitude higher.
> found by unpaid volunteers, not via some comprehensive process
"Unpaid volunteers" describes the majority of the academic publication process so I'm not sure what you're point is. It's also a pretty reasonable approach - readers should report issues. This is exactly how moderation works the web over.
Mind that I'm not arguing in favor of the status quo. Merely pointing out that this isn't some smoking gun.
> you might object that the paper in question comes from India and not an R1 American university
Yes, it does rather seem that you're trying to argue one thing (ie the mainstream scientific establishment of the western world is full of fraud) while selecting evidence from a rather different bucket (non-R1 institutions, journals that aren't mainstream, papers that aren't widely cited and were probably never read by anyone).
> The journal itself does, though. It's edited by an academic in ...
That isn't how anyone I've ever worked with assessed journal reputability. At a glance that journal doesn't look anywhere near high end to me.
Remember that, just as with books, anyone can publish any scientific writeup that they'd like. By raw numbers, most published works of fiction aren't very high quality.[0] That doesn't say anything about the skilled fiction authors or the industry as a whole though.
> but it doesn't get fixed.
Is there a problem to begin with? People are publishing things. Are you seriously suggesting that we attempt to regulate what people are permitted to publish or who academics are permitted to associate with on the basis of some magical objective quality metric that doesn't currently exist?
If you go searching for trash you will find trash. Things like industry and walk of life have little bearing on it. Trash is universal.
You are lumping together a bunch of different things that no professional would ever consider to belong to the same category. If you want to critique mainstream scientific research then you need to present an analysis of sources that are widely accepted as being mainstream.
The inconsistent standards seen in this type of discussion damages sympathy amongst the public, and causes people who could be allies in future to just give up. Every year there are more articles on scientific fraud appear in all kinds of places, from newspapers to HN to blogs yet the reaction is always https://prod-printler-front-as.azurewebsites.net/media/photo...
Academics draw a salary to do their job, but when they go AWOL on tasks critical to their profession suddenly they're all unpaid volunteers. This Is Fine.
Journals don't retract fraudulent articles without a fight, yet the low retraction rate is evidence that This Is Fine.
The publishing process is a source of credibility so rigorous it places academic views well above those of the common man, but when it publishes spam on auto-pilot suddenly journals are just some kind of abandoned subreddit and This Is Fine "but I'm not arguing in favor of it".
And the darned circular logic. Fraud is common but This Is Fine because reputable sources don't do it, where the definition of reputable is totally ad-hoc beyond not engaging in fraud. This thread is an exemplar: today reputable means American R1 universities because they don't do bad stuff like that, except when their employees sign off on it but that's totally different. The editor of The Lancet has said probably half of what his journal publishes is wrong [1] but This Is Fine until there's "an analysis of sources that are widely accepted as being mainstream".
Reputability is meaningless. Many of the supposedly top universities have hosted star researchers, entire labs [2] and even presidents who were caught doing long cons of various kinds. This Is Not Fine.
> Academics draw a salary to do their job, but when they go AWOL on tasks critical to their profession suddenly they're all unpaid volunteers. This Is Fine.
Academics are paid by grants to work on concrete research and by their institution to work on tasks institution pays for. These institutions do not pay for general "tasks critical to their profession".
> This Is Fine.
That is as much fine as me not working on an open source project on my employer time.
> The inconsistent standards seen in this type of discussion
I assume you must be referring to the standards of the person I was replying to?
> damages sympathy amongst the public
Indeed. The sort of misinformation seen in this thread, presented in an authoritative tone, damages the public perception of the mainstream scientific establishment.
> Every year there are more articles on scientific fraud appear in all kinds of places
If those articles reflect the discussion in this thread so far then I'd suggest that they amount to little more than libel.
Even if those articles have substance, you are at a minimum implying a false equivalence - that the things being discussed in this thread (and the various examples provided) are the same as those articles. I already explained in the comment you directly replied to why the discussion in this thread is not an accurate description of the reality.
> Academics draw a salary to do their job, but when they go AWOL on tasks critical to their profession
Do they? It was already acknowledged that they do unpaid labor in this regard. If society expects those tasks to be performed to a higher standard then perhaps resources need to be allocated for it. How is it reasonable to expect an employee to do something they aren't paid to do? If management's policies leave the business depending on an underfunded task then that is entirely management's fault, no?
> The publishing process is a source of credibility ... but when it publishes ...
As I already pointed out previously, this is conflating distinct things. Credible journals are credible. Ones that aren't aren't. Pointing to trash and saying "that isn't credible" isn't useful. Nobody ever suggested it was.
If you lack such basic understanding of the field then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on it in such an authoritative tone?
> This Is Fine "but I'm not arguing in favor of it".
Precisely how do you propose that we regulate academic's freedom of speech (and the related freedom of the press) without violating their fundamental human rights? Unless you have a workable proposal in this regard your complaints are meaningless.
I also eagerly await this objective and un-gameable metric of quality that your position appears to imply.
> Fraud is common but This Is Fine because reputable sources don't do it, where the definition of reputable is totally ad-hoc beyond not engaging in fraud.
Violent crime is common [on planet earth] but this isn't relevant to our discussion because the place we live [our city/state/country] doesn't have this issue, where the definition for "place we live" is rather arbitrarily defined by some squiggles that were drawn on a map.
Do you see the issue with what you wrote now?
If a journal publishes low quality papers that makes that journal a low quality outlet, right? Conversely, if the vast majority of the materials it publishes are high quality then it will be recognized as a high quality outlet. As with any other good it is on the consumer to determine quality for themselves.
If you object to the above then please be sure that you have a workable proposal for how to do things differently that doesn't infringe on basic human rights (but I repeat myself).
> today reputable means American R1 universities because they don't do bad stuff like that
It's a quick way of binning things. A form of profiling. By the metrics it holds up - a large volume of high quality work and few examples (relative to the total) of bad things happening.
> except when their employees sign off on it but that's totally different
The provided example upthread was a journal editor, not an author. No one (at least that I'm aware of) is assessing a paper based on the editors attached to the journal that it appeared in. I'm really not sure what your point is here other than to illustrate that you haven't the faintest idea how this stuff actually works in practice.
> The editor of The Lancet has said
Did you actually read the article you refer to here? "Wrong conclusions" is not "fraud" or even "misconduct". Many valid criticisms of the current system are laid out in that article. None of them support the claims made by you and others in this comments section.
> star researchers, entire labs [2] and even presidents who were caught doing long cons of various kinds. This Is Not Fine.
We finally agree on something! It is not fine. Which is why, naturally, those things generally had consequences once discovered.
An argument can certainly be made that those things should have been discovered earlier. That it should have been more difficult to do them. That the perverse incentives that led to many of them are a serious systemic issue.
In fact those exact arguments are the ones being made in the essay you linked. You will also find that a huge portion (likely the majority) of the scientific establishment in the west agrees with them. But agreeing that there are systemic issues is not the same as having a workable solution let alone having the resources and authority to implement it.
Thanks for the link to the randomly-chosen paper. It really brightened my day to move my eyes over the craziness of this text. Who needs "The Onion" when Springer is providing this sort of comedy?
Example, select the tortured phrases section of this database. It's literally nothing fancier than a big regex:
https://dbrech.irit.fr/pls/apex/f?p=9999:24::::::
Randomly chosen paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11042-025-20660-1
"A novel approach on heart disease prediction using optimized hybrid deep learning approach", published in Multimedia Tools and Applications.
This paper has been run through a thesaurus spinner yielding garbage text like "To advance the expectation exactness of the anticipated heart malady location show" (heart disease -> heart malady). It also has nothing to do with the journal it's published in.
Now you might object that the paper in question comes from India and not an R1 American university, which is how you're defining reputable. The journal itself does, though. It's edited by an academic in the Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, which is an R1. It also has many dozens of people with the title of editor at other presumably reputable western universities like Brunel in the UK, the University of Salerno, etc:
https://link.springer.com/journal/11042/editorial-board
Clearly, none of the so-called editors of the journal can be reading what's submitted to it. Zombie journals run by well known publishers like Spring Nature are common. They auto-publish blatant spam yet always have a gazillion editors at well known universities. This stuff is so basic both generation and detection predate LLMs entirely, but it doesn't get fixed.
Then you get into all the papers that aren't trivially fake but fake in advanced undetectable ways, or which are merely using questionable research practices... the true rate of retraction if standards were at the level laymen imagine would be orders of magnitude higher.