Anonymous at Sat, 28 Sep 2024 16:12:46 UTC No. 16401066

A lot of this could be solved if publishers were forced to publish null results in some massive databases

Imagine some giant database of experiments that didn’t work with an abstract and bare one protocol that was searchable and citable. It would be as useful as finding what does work for future work and if it counted as being published. A lot of false papers wouldn’t be because your masters student would just dump their garbage there.

Anonymous at Sat, 28 Sep 2024 16:15:41 UTC No. 16401068

>>16401060
Another fraudulent neuro"""scientist""". Is the whole field complete made up bullshit or something?

Anonymous at Sat, 28 Sep 2024 17:46:20 UTC No. 16401232

>>16401066
it would literally change nothing because nobody would fund those researchers and no media outlets would draw attention to those results
Humanity runs on memes, if it's not sensational it's not worth paying attention to

Anonymous at Sat, 28 Sep 2024 19:32:31 UTC No. 16401409

This should tank the careers of his co authors who by conventions are co-responsible for the entire contents of the respective articles.
In reality this depends on their personal networks. After all, Batlogg survived the Schoen scandal.

Anonymous at Sat, 28 Sep 2024 19:41:58 UTC No. 16401424

Go back to your containment board, incel.

Anonymous at Sat, 28 Sep 2024 19:53:10 UTC No. 16401434

>science
Is she right?

Anonymous at Sat, 28 Sep 2024 20:17:22 UTC No. 16401449

the only way to fix this is to criminally punish scientific fraud, idk why this doesn't happen already.
any illusion of scientists being noble and policing themselves should be discarded by now.

Anonymous at Sat, 28 Sep 2024 20:20:22 UTC No. 16401454

>>16401068
this hackernews comment on it is pretty good.
real science is often just inconclusive and when everything is such a crapshoot you might as well just lie to get those citations, news articles, grants, professorships etc

Anonymous at Sun, 29 Sep 2024 03:22:42 UTC No. 16401845

>>16401454
OP here.
yup, it is. I read that comment and made me think of how many people have had the same experience... no wonder everything is fake. the least moral, the higher you can get

Anonymous at Sun, 29 Sep 2024 03:32:59 UTC No. 16401847

>>16401060
I hate these low-effort threads where you just screencap some article. OK, so what? Do you have some thoughts about it, faggot?

Anonymous at Sun, 29 Sep 2024 03:43:23 UTC No. 16401856

1 fraud paper = 1 year in prison.

Anonymous at Sun, 29 Sep 2024 04:32:47 UTC No. 16401896

>>16401847
>I want my thoughts diggested by someone else because I'm too lazy, both intellectually and physically
>t.NPC
just kill yourself, you fucking waste of oxygen

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:38:14 UTC No. 16403895

Neuroscience is one of the most fraud ridden subsets of science in terms of the relevant statistics on retractions and the like. Does anyone know why that is? Is it because there is somehow more money at stake in neuroscience publications or is there a different reason which can't be explained by simple greed?

Anonymous at Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:42:59 UTC No. 16403899

>>16401232
>nobody would fund them
they already accompish nothing and get funding. They may as well pay Elsiever to publish their garbage. Think about it, everyone wins, except for the grad students, but those aren't people so who cares.

Anonymous at Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:47:29 UTC No. 16403901

>>16403895
i naively assume that there is more fraud in neuroscience because it is so poorly understood. people intending to be fraudsters are drawn to it for that reason, and people not intending to defraud others end up doing so more easily after their work is frustrated by reality. it's fair to assume that the risk/reward calculation is lighter on the risk side for neuroscience.

Anonymous at Mon, 30 Sep 2024 17:05:23 UTC No. 16403923

>>16403901
there is much, much more fraud in nutritional science and completely a tier of junk garbage published in medicine every day (maybe like 20%).
Compared to them, neuroscience is still very respectable.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 30 Sep 2024 21:56:32 UTC No. 16404318

>>16403895
>there is somehow more money at stake in neuroscience
Selling psyche meds is a huge business

>>16403923
neuroscience is massively fraudulent, nutrition would have a tough time competing with it due to a relative lack of funding and profit motive

Anonymous at Mon, 30 Sep 2024 23:40:52 UTC No. 16404421

>>16401060
modern academics are not interested in truth, they are interested in debate and argumentation
that is what they are taught
and they make their arguments primarily for their own benefit, as they have to compete with each other
that's how you get such wonderful ideologies as wokeism

Anonymous at Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:27:05 UTC No. 16405031

>>16403923
>completely a tier of junk garbage published in medicine every day (maybe like 20%).
Yet people still respect docs kek

>Compared to them, neuroscience is still very respectable.
Isn't neuroscience a subfield of medicine?

Anonymous at Tue, 1 Oct 2024 16:53:53 UTC No. 16405306

>>16405031
>neuroscience a subfield of medicine
No it's not you retard.
Neuroscience is categorized as fundamental research field seek to understand part of the human body. It is usually classified under natural sciences.
Medicine focus on treating diseases rather than expanding human understanding and this is reflected in most medicine projects focus on evaluating or using existing methods for treating diseases.
At least learn what the fields do retard.

Anonymous at Tue, 1 Oct 2024 17:02:34 UTC No. 16405320

>>16401066
Null outcome (NO) and reproduction of research (ROR) papers should be their own categories of publication in academia.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 2 Oct 2024 03:32:46 UTC No. 16406030

>>16404421
>they are interested in
money

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Oct 2024 03:56:26 UTC No. 16406055

>>16405320
this - i'm honestly surprised most fields don't have some kind of 'journal of reproduced studies' or something like that. it'd be an easy way for early career anons to flesh out their publishing resume and would build valuable statistics for important findings

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Oct 2024 18:08:16 UTC No. 16406656

>>16401060
>fraud
I thought this thread was going to be about the Stanford Prison Experiment,

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Oct 2024 18:16:58 UTC No. 16406663

>>16406055
The journal Organic Synthesis requires methods to be reproduced by two independent labs before they will publish a paper.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 3 Oct 2024 03:08:10 UTC No. 16407190

>>16404318
based on that trend, neuroscience publications should be nearly 50% fake by now

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 4 Oct 2024 04:14:12 UTC No. 16408462

>>16406663
the '''independent''''' labs only make a profit and get repeat business if they give their clients the results they want

Cult of Passion at Fri, 4 Oct 2024 05:49:09 UTC No. 16408525

>>16401060
>[...]got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke University[...]
Oh, so not an M.D.? I only trust real Doctors.

Someone should tell him to take his pharmaceuticals, then express amusement, and alert him of his career demise.

Anonymous at Sat, 5 Oct 2024 04:37:23 UTC No. 16410249

>>16406055
people don't just choose to do whatever experiments they want, they do the ones they're paid to do told to do and they get the results whoever provides the funding wants them to get, if they don't then they don't get any further funding

Anonymous at Sat, 5 Oct 2024 05:19:17 UTC No. 16410269

>>16401449
in republics, academia is part of the entertainment industry

Anonymous at Sat, 5 Oct 2024 06:22:03 UTC No. 16410299

>>16404318
biology is not a science
sciences and technologies are stagnating. The big bet of the atheists is that the golden age of biology is still ahead of them, hoping it will be like the golden age of physics. It wont because biology is even more based on statistics than physics, and this will harder intellectually and in practice there will be way more side effects to whatever they invent, and since those will be applied directly to humans, there will be more upheavals.

Anonymous at Sat, 5 Oct 2024 08:45:35 UTC No. 16410353

>>16410299
The golden age of science is international corporations merging with government agencies at a global scale to test their shit products on jabrats. It is kino in the same way as cyberpunk. Except, instead of anything cool, it is just a jewspiracy.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 6 Oct 2024 03:41:15 UTC No. 16411750

>>16410299
>It wont because biology is even more based on statistics than physics, and this will harder intellectually and in practice there will be way more side effects to whatever they invent,
Also because biologists can't do math. Even the relatively simple statistics involved in physics topics like thermodynamics is massively over the heads of bio types.

Anonymous at Sun, 6 Oct 2024 16:39:54 UTC No. 16412469

Any news on this?

Cult of Passion at Mon, 7 Oct 2024 04:53:26 UTC No. 16413478

>>16410353
>jabrats
Huffmice*.

Anonymous at Mon, 7 Oct 2024 05:17:30 UTC No. 16413495

>>16408462
chemistry is the hardest science to do fraud

Anonymous at Mon, 7 Oct 2024 05:26:49 UTC No. 16413506

Anonymous at Mon, 7 Oct 2024 23:56:55 UTC No. 16414836

>>16413506
Jej, should have been obvious. The guy is mexican but seems to have escalated the academic ladder pretty fast..

Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 02:16:37 UTC No. 16414983

>>16401068
These all have to do with Alzheimer's research, and the causes of that. I bet it has to do with the potential lucrative nature of a breakthrough there. So they fake it. I wonder if he will connect on linkedin lol.

Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 02:26:29 UTC No. 16414998

>>16403901
>>16403923
Every one of these western blot fraud instances has to do with Alzheimer's disease research. It's both because what you posted about it being poorly understood, mixed with desire to sell a drug for it later.

Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 03:06:22 UTC No. 16415027

>>16414998
>mixed with desire to sell a drug for it later
wrong. you can't sell drugs on totally fake and fraudulent research. that won't get past the FDA. at least you need to have SOMETHING.
it's the cheating to get ahead mentality. As long as you don't get caught (which is very rare in fields related to medicine/biology, considering the mental faculty and scientific rigor of people in these fields), you will get a lucrative career and ton of money. there is very little incentives to not cheat.
the reason why these guys are getting caught is probably they're going back to test all high-profile alzheimer papers due to the scandal of the amyloid scandal

Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 03:49:36 UTC No. 16415083

>>16415027
>you can't sell drugs on totally fake and fraudulent research

Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 05:33:48 UTC No. 16415143

>>16415083
damn, that's even worse than I thought.
drugcels need some death penalties handed out to a few of them as a deterrence.

Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 20:29:00 UTC No. 16416252

sciencebros I thought you all had replicative studies with no extraneous factors influencing variables! i thought all your documentation wasnt recursive mumbo jumbo that references another flawed study which references another flawed study ad nauseum! Wait, you guys are in it for money? I thought because of your big toroid multiverse brains that the neurotransmitters could only use the glorious function of ATP to produce morally and ethically good decisions??? Sheeeeit

Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 20:42:03 UTC No. 16416277

No, HOLD ON a second. Some issues:
1. I never heard of the “National Institute on Aging”, it SOUNDS like a fake organization (but what do I know). Are we talking about some guy’s blog he pretends is a real research organization?
2. There’s doctored images. Okay? So what? Did he also doctor his research fellows, testing cohorts, labs, references, etc?
3. No one in the peer review network noticed all of the falsified items above? No one noticed “wait a second, such-and-such never worked on this…”? Or “Huh, when did Lab X do this testing?”
Can you see where I’m coming from? If this a real story?

Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:10:42 UTC No. 16416440

>>16416277
>1. I never heard of the “National Institute on Aging”, it SOUNDS like a fake organization (but what do I know). Are we talking about some guy’s blog he pretends is a real research organization?
it's a real thing. google it they even have an NIH official webpage. the whole fucking organization that is funded by the government colluded in the frauds. it's not just one or two PhDs or research fellow.

Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:17:30 UTC No. 16417774

>>16415027
>the reason why these guys are getting caught is probably they're going back to test all high-profile alzheimer papers due to the scandal of the amyloid scandal
This is unlikely. Since most of these organisations, the FDA and other drug regulatory facilities, are already captured by pharmaceutical companies, there is absolutely no reason for them to do anything about it beyond catching one or two high-profile fraudster and hand out mild punitive measures that are then highly propagated in the news via sponsored content. Some meaningless document, because not legally binding, is likely adopted that, in the end, no one cares about. The fraud will go on uninterrupted.
Why do I know that?
Because it just happened a shit ton of times before. Remember the thalidomide scandal from the early '60s? The responsible pharmaceutical company knew of the drug causing birth defects since the mid '40s.