"Scientific fraud has become an ‘industry,’ alarming analysis finds" - Cathleen O'Grady, Science, 04AUG2025
>The paper, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, paints an alarming picture. Northwestern University metascientist Reese Richardson and his colleagues identify networks of editors and authors colluding to publish shoddy or fraudulent papers, report that large organizations are placing batches of fake papers in journals, suggest brokers may serve as intermediaries between paper mills and intercepted journals, and find that the number of fake papers—though still relatively small—seems to be increasing at a rate far greater than the scientific literature generally.
>For instance, of the 79 papers that one editor had handled at PLOS ONE, 49 have been retracted. Flagged editors handled 1.3% of papers published in the journal by 2024, but nearly one-third of all retracted papers.
https://archive.ph/f7qjY
(Replication Crisis)
@sciencecringe
#soyence #science #fraud
>The paper, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, paints an alarming picture. Northwestern University metascientist Reese Richardson and his colleagues identify networks of editors and authors colluding to publish shoddy or fraudulent papers, report that large organizations are placing batches of fake papers in journals, suggest brokers may serve as intermediaries between paper mills and intercepted journals, and find that the number of fake papers—though still relatively small—seems to be increasing at a rate far greater than the scientific literature generally.
>For instance, of the 79 papers that one editor had handled at PLOS ONE, 49 have been retracted. Flagged editors handled 1.3% of papers published in the journal by 2024, but nearly one-third of all retracted papers.
https://archive.ph/f7qjY
(Replication Crisis)
@sciencecringe
#soyence #science #fraud
Forensic Science International: Genetics
NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation observed and lessons learned
Interlaboratory comparisonstudies, which are sometimes referred to as collaborative
exercises or round-robin studies, provide a useful way to demonstrate that multiple
laboratories can generate comparable results with the same provided samples, and are
cited…
exercises or round-robin studies, provide a useful way to demonstrate that multiple
laboratories can generate comparable results with the same provided samples, and are
cited…
The NIST study data that no one is supposed to see…!
In the NIST study (National Institute of Standards and Technology, see source), a mixed DNA sample from four people was produced. The task for 108 forensic laboratories was to assess whether a certain "suspect" is contained within this sample.
The built-in study trick
The so-called "DNA" of the suspect was never actually included in the sample.
The results of the 108 laboratories:
» 69% said: The suspect could be contained
» 25% said: The data are inconclusive
» 6% said: The suspect is not contained
In other words:
Only 6% of the laboratories have correctly recognized the situation.
94% of them were wrong or did not provide a clear, correct statement.
And exactly this method is worldwide considered as "objective DNA evidence".
Why this is another nail in the coffin for the genetics narrative, as it already has been shown that:
» Race tests in dogs are giving completely contradictory results depending on the laboratory (Romeo experiment).
» DNA samples of the same female dog ("Mia/Sam"): Determined the wrong gender, wrong assignment in an accredited forensic laboratory.
» A paternity study with 336 children and 348 unrelated men showed that 95.8% of the children had at least one additional "father", sometimes up to 32 men, who could not be statistically ruled out.
Now adding to this:
» A 108 laboratories, where 94% of them fail to correctly recognize that the suspect isn't found in the provided sample at all.
This is not a gold standard in any way.. no, this is again the result of professional deception disguised by soyentists as "DNA forensics".
Conclusion
What is sold as "a fixed blueprint" and "objective evidence" turns out to be a scientific interpretation and results existing only within software (just like with virology). This is not a scientific fact, but can only be classified as pseudo-science. #Soyence #DNA
» Source
Thirty on thirty
In the NIST study (National Institute of Standards and Technology, see source), a mixed DNA sample from four people was produced. The task for 108 forensic laboratories was to assess whether a certain "suspect" is contained within this sample.
The built-in study trick
The so-called "DNA" of the suspect was never actually included in the sample.
The results of the 108 laboratories:
» 69% said: The suspect could be contained
» 25% said: The data are inconclusive
» 6% said: The suspect is not contained
In other words:
Only 6% of the laboratories have correctly recognized the situation.
94% of them were wrong or did not provide a clear, correct statement.
And exactly this method is worldwide considered as "objective DNA evidence".
Why this is another nail in the coffin for the genetics narrative, as it already has been shown that:
» Race tests in dogs are giving completely contradictory results depending on the laboratory (Romeo experiment).
» DNA samples of the same female dog ("Mia/Sam"): Determined the wrong gender, wrong assignment in an accredited forensic laboratory.
» A paternity study with 336 children and 348 unrelated men showed that 95.8% of the children had at least one additional "father", sometimes up to 32 men, who could not be statistically ruled out.
Now adding to this:
» A 108 laboratories, where 94% of them fail to correctly recognize that the suspect isn't found in the provided sample at all.
This is not a gold standard in any way.. no, this is again the result of professional deception disguised by soyentists as "DNA forensics".
Conclusion
What is sold as "a fixed blueprint" and "objective evidence" turns out to be a scientific interpretation and results existing only within software (just like with virology). This is not a scientific fact, but can only be classified as pseudo-science. #Soyence #DNA
» Source
Thirty on thirty