- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Just my luck it was mostly for food use so the whole business avoided the fun solvent carriers.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You spend 10 years sniffing glue?
It's a topic well worth the research.
You forgot this image:
Edit: If you can't read it:
Where 100'000 papers are published, 13 of them are retracted and 3 of them are frauds. (This wasn't peer reviewed of course, as the publisher clearly states)
Also, you might be interested in:
"For instance, roughly 53% of fraudulent papers were written by a ‘repeat offender’ who had written other retracted papers"
You could've just said "I don't know."
Where did you get the 2% from? Were you using it correctly?So the data you highlight of .005% fraud being documented along with the 2% (that admit to fraud) means there is very little fraud being discovered. Many people in this forum claim all fraud is discovered by peer review eventually. But the data you point out says otherwise.
And there may be a few people who don't admit to fraud in surveys, those who refuse to answer, and some who don't feel what they are doing is wrong. We've seen people like that.
My mistake. Well worth your research time.
Some percentage of a population naturally less affected. That percentage reproduces while the dead ones don't.
Where did you get the 2% from? ....How much understanding of how statistics work do you have?
You're not applying the numbers properly.As you say, of the papers filed .005% were recalled for problems.
And yet: "A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. "
PLoS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
So your data shows that nearly 100% of fraud goes unnoticed because .005% of papers are recalled for problems or errors.
So the system doesn't really work. Who has the time and resources time to double check everyone's work?
.
The number 0,005% is the fraud rate of papers in America, the number 1,97% is the rate of scientists who has admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once.
Most of which can be attributed to the fringe publications or gray papers that often publish research outside their stated area(s) of expertise; therefore, not really a true peer review.
You're not applying the numbers properly.
The number 0,005% is the fraud rate of papers in America, the number 1,97% is the rate of scientists who has admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once.Those two numbers are not in any way comparable.
What percentage would that be then?
I have no idea what the percentage would be other than very low. As I said, most of the fraudulent papers appear in the gray literature (non peer reviewed) and fringe peer review where the reviewers of some articles are not experts in those areas.
Apply the numbers properly or don't apply them at all.
I was referring to you, you showed a lack of understanding in how to apply the given numbers in #949.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?