Fake Science Papers in the News

Image courtesy of Frederick Burr Opper, Public Domain.




Joel Kontinen

In 2015, a group of Chinese scientists published a paper entitled “Nucleolin Promotes TGF-β Signaling Initiation via TGF-β Receptor I in Glioblastoma” in the Journal of Molecular Neuroscience.

While it might sound like a genuine scientific paper, there is little genuine in it. 1) Its stated funding source was not the real funding source. 2) One of the co-authors admitted he had not taken part in the research or in writing the paper and didn’t even know about the study. 3) The senior author acknowledged that he had not taken part in the submission process and did not support its publication. 4) The journal’s editors suspected that the peer-review process was compromised,

The paper was retracted in June 2017. This year, the journal’s publisher Springer has retracted over 100 scientific papers, prompting Live Science to begin an article with the words:

“Lies, exaggerations, criminal acts, unbridled irony, alternative facts,
fake news … No, we're not talking about 2017 politics. This is the 2017 world of science.”

The article goes on to say:

“This past year, hundreds of scientific papers were retracted from professional journals. In the majority of cases involving these retractions, the reason was an innocent, yet sloppy, error in the methodology of the experiment that the authors themselves caught. But for quite a few papers, the retractions reflected scientific misconduct and a not-so-innocent attempt to tweak the data — or make it up entirely.”

And Live Science didn’t even mention the case of a dog sitting on the editorial board of 7 journals.

It seems that scientific misconduct thrives in the Darwinian community.

Quite often, big science gives rise to big lies.

Source:

Wanjek, Christopher. 2017. Lies, Mistakes & More: These Scientific Papers Got Nixed in 2017. Live Science (27 December).

Peer Review in Disgrace: 4 Journals Publish Hoax Star Wars Paper Featuring Midi-Chlorians

The real mitochondrion looks like this. Image courtesy of Kelvinsong, , Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).




Joel Kontinen

Peer review does not automatically mean that a science paper is reliable. At least one bogus, computer generated paper was accepted for publication in a journal.

Then there was the episode of a dog sitting on the editorial board of 7 journals.

The latest addition to this trend features a hoax Star Wars Paper on Midi-Chlorians accepted by four journals.

Obviously, the reviewers failed to distinguish between the supercomplex mitochondrion and the fictitious “and widely derided microscopic life-forms that give Jedi warriors their ability to use the Force in the ‘Star Wars’ movies,” as Live Science puts it.

It seems that it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction, real news and fake news, as the recent fake news about the Canaanites reminds us.

Source:

Pappas, Stephanie. 2017. Mitochondria or Midi-Chlorians? 'Star Wars' Hoax Paper Published in 4 Journals. Live Science (25 July).

High Time to Distrust Peer Review: Dog Sits on the Editorial Board of 7 Journals

A dog like this sits on the editorial board of seven medical journals. Image courtesy of Andrejco, public domain.





Joel Kontinen

Dr. Olivia Doll sits on the editorial board of seven medical journals.

Her CV says that she holds a degree from Subiaco College of Veterinary Science, where she currently works as senior lecturer and is an expert in canine massage. It also lists her past work at Shenton Park Institute for Canine Refuge Studies.

Dr. Olivia Doll happens to be a Staffordshire terrier named Ollie. The Shenton Park Institute is a code term for a dog shelter.

The five-year-old terrier is owned by Professor Mike Daube. He invented Dr. Doll’s credentials in an attempt to examine how carefully medical journals vet their reviewers.

Not very carefully, obviously.

None of the journals suspected anything fishy about this reviewer. She was even offered the position of associate editor of the Global Journal of Addiction and Rehabilitation Medicine.

Peer review and proper scientific conduct seem to be in a crisis. Journals have accepted bogus papers, and scientific misconduct thrives in the Darwinian world.

Source:

Ghose, Tia. 2017. Dog 'Scientist' Sits on Editorial Board of Medical Journals. Live Science (31 May).

Bogus Paper Accepted by a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Advances in Pure Mathematics (APM) is an openly accessible peer-reviewed journal.




Joel Kontinen

Proponents of Darwinian evolution often claim that those who are sceptical of evolution never publish papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The claim is false. However, one might be justified in questioning the validity of peer review, especially after a recent case in which a computer-generated mathematics paper was actually accepted for publication.

“Professor Marcie Rathke” submitted a paper entitled Independent, negative, canonically Turing arrows of equations and problems in applied formal PDE to the journal Advances in Pure Mathematics.

Advances in Pure Mathematics (APM) states that it “is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of ordered algebraic structures”.

The journal accepted Prof. Rathke’s paper but required some slight modifications to it.

What makes this interesting is that the entire paper was randomly generated.



Source:


Eldredge, Nate. 2012. Mathgen paper accepted! That’s Mathematics! (14 September).

AIG Online Journal Touches a Raw Nerve

This journal upset Evolutionists

Joel Kontinen

Answers in Genesis launched a new peer reviewed online journal in January and promptly received comments from an unexpected source - the science journal Nature. Originally set up by T. H. Huxley and other Darwinists to be a voice for evolution, it is still staunchly committed to a naturalistic view of origins. For instance, in a recent editorial Nature stated that evolution was a scientific fact just like atoms or Earth’s revolution round the moon.

Faithful to its anti-creationist stance, Nature made a distinction between science and “science” in its comments. The article put the word science in quotes when referring to the AIG journal. It seems that by their definition everything that smacks of criticism of Darwinism cannot be regarded as genuine science.

The Nature article included the views of two well-known evolutionists. Keith Miller, a theistic evolutionist, admitted that this was not the first peer reviewed creationist publication. Indeed, Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)has been published for over 40 years and the Journal of Creation for 22 years. Miller emphasised the need to “educate non-scientists about the scientific process”. Creationists would agree, provided this is not Orwellenianese for “indoctrination”.

Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education, who has previously admitted that bringing up alternatives to Darwinian evolution tends to confuse students, claims that publications like the Answers Research Journal are part of an ongoing battle to exclude science from local curricula. This statement has nothing to do with the truth, since no creationist would dream of putting an end to science.

Contrary to what Nature claims, creationists do not want to “discourage the teaching of evolution.” More evolution should be taught, not as dogma but with warts and all. As AIG, ICR, CMI and other creationist organisations have shown, there is much to write about in evolution.

2009 is a momentous year for evolutionists the world over. Not only do they celebrate Darwin’s 200th birthday, but it will also be 150 years since the publishing of the Origin of Species. Might the Darwinists be a little scared that some dissidents will spoil their nice birthday party? At least Eugenie Scott conceded, “Creation science is alive and well and appealing to a substantial minority of the American public.” She could as well have included that its influece is by no means restricted to the US.

Nature’s peer review might be in need of an update. Geoff Brumfiel, who wrote the article, defined intelligent design as “a belief that a higher being shaped evolution”. While some ID supporters might accept this interpretation, many others would disagree.

You can read more about Answers Research Journal here.

For a more intelligent definition of intelligent design read this.

You can read an analysis of this panic here.

Sources:

Brumfield, Geoff . 2008. Creationists launch ‘science’ journal. Nature 451:7178, 382-383.

Luskin, Casey. 2008. Nature Fulfilling Its Charter to Defend Evolution at all Costs. Evolution News and views. 11. 1. 2008. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/nature_fulfilling_its_charter.html#more

Nature 2008. Spread the word. Evolution is a scientific fact and every organisation whose research depends on it should explain why. Nature 451:7175, 108.