The requirement that scholars constantly publish or face academic ruin has been considered the primary engine of scientific discovery for decades. But a growing movement of universities and researchers is trying to banish the practice to the archives, saying it has perverted the pursuit of knowledge and eroded the public’s trust in science.
Reformers at top universities in Europe and the U.S., including Cambridge, Sorbonne, and UC Berkeley, say this traditional system of advancement has led to an explosion in the growth of low-quality research, with little meaningful impact on academic fields or society. It has also sparked the spread of fraudulent research, as “paper mills” churn out fake articles for sale to academics seeking to pad their CVs.
To weaken the “publish or perish” stranglehold on universities, hundreds of research institutions are reforming the incentive system that shapes academic careers. It currently rewards scholars for frequently winning grants and publishing papers, with extra points for landing in the most esteemed, high-impact journals, even when the articles are not themselves influential.
More: Rossner is part of a network of experts that sniff out researchers who intentionally or recklessly fabricate, falsify, or plagiarize evidence. Rossner, a consultant specializing in identifying manipulated and duplicated images in journal papers – a telltale sign of deceit – has been dismayed by his findings at U.S. research centers. Scientists often have deleted the data underlying the images, making misconduct harder to prove and casting doubt on the validity of the research.
I blame the climate change industry for this.
Oh, sure, they used to pull the same tricks on gun control and feminist issues back in the day, but not nearly to the same extent. The CAGW people really made it an art form, and it was later exploited even further by the COVID ‘vaccine’ zealots.
I can’t see the solution to this problem unless it involves consequences of some kind, meaning legitimate legal and/or financial ones (sullying their reputation doesn’t seem to be enough anymore, because they no longer have any shame).
Bingo, Fred. I’ll tell you one thing, this supposed “reform” is a joke:
“The new incentives vary at different universities and research centers, but tend to focus on the actual quality of the research rather than the quantity or the prestige of the journals.”
As if an educational institution that admits students and hires staff on DEI criteria instead of intellectual merit (and they all do) is able and willing to “focus on the actual quality of the research”.
Junk science and studies combined with imbecil activists for politicians is why we are drinking from paper straws. Could be worse, we could be living in Europe.
This is the scientific equivalent of what the left has done to journalism. Because they lack the facts to push their narratives, they fabricate evidence. Quotes and actions from people who don’t exist. Events that didn’t occur.
When caught, they deny and deflect. When the evidence is overwhelming, they blame a scapegoat and claim it as a one-off. If they have to fire the guy, he’ll later be quietly rehired somewhere similar.
Junk science (Coronahoax) or junk news (intolerant “far-right” groups), it’s the same playbook and pushed by the same vermin.
L – “The publication of fraudulent papers, full of fake data is growing at a faster rate than legitimate papers according to a 2025 study threatening the legitimacy of the scientific enterprise.”
Sic Probo, Quad erat demonstratum
Well they do want to be professors.
So they have to profess in writing, yes?
When I went to university in the early 1970s, I think 5% of my high school class went. Maybe another 5% were in nursing or accounting which typically weren’t then degree programs. Maybe another 5% went later. Now maybe 50% are in degree level programs. The choice of flunking 80% or lowering the standards has been made and it ain’t pretty. People in university are simply way stupider than they used to be.
The solution is already well known and that solution has been proven. Give every qualified scientist not just their salary but a base grant to do their job. Imagine being a truck driver and being told, okay now you have your truck driving license but you have to go get a grant to buy truck from other sponsors and outside agencies. We’ll take a percentage off that grant for our expenses but you can’t ask for extra to cover that. And you have to keep doing it very year because no one will give you money for more than a one year period. Only about 20% of truck drivers will ever actually get a grant for a truck. If you get the grant we tell you where you can drive and what loads you can haul even if it makes no sense. We also will only give you 25% of your costs and you will still be expected to get 100% of the work done. Your grant will be last in the heap if you are white or male. AND the entire grant system costs much more than it would cost to just give everyone on salary a base grant. All of this is studied and documented. That’s what the typical scientists face in today’s system. They have a salary and absolutely not one penny more for anything having to do with DOING science and they spend 60% of their time writing grants. No sane person would ever accept that kind of job.
Oh, yeah, government-funded research will fix this problem. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.
I guess you didn’t read the part about how it is actually cheaper than the current grant system and proven to be far more productive because all scientists are in an equal footing and encourages collaboration instead of competition. It also dramatically reduces bureaucracies in both the Federal system and the universities.
When so-called liberal (with your tax dollars) government manages the grants,
or media, or immigration, or trucking, it’s only for applying their motto:
… “if it ain’t broke, break it.”
step one: look who OWNS these ‘academic’ publications.
story was a ways back they got ‘concentrated’ in small # hands,
for instance: https://theconversation.com/academic-publishing-is-a-multibillion-dollar-industry-its-not-always-good-for-science-250056
A big problem is not fraudulent science but incremental papers — ones that make only small advancements to the science, and have no or little influence, even if they get cited numerous times. The old hands can crank those out by the cartload, and know to write them to hide the fact that they’re only minor innovations.
A second problem is the habit of listing authors who contributed little or nothing to the paper. This is particularly common in Asia, where the people who did the real work reward their supervisors or buddies. I’ve seen many papers whose research could easily have been done by one or two people, but had seven authors listed.
A big problem is not fraudulent science…
Horse shit. That is the problem.
And you know this how?
Well. I’ll be god danged, Mr. Marmot.
You just undermined everything you rebut us benighted people with.
First problem: old hands plagiarize their grad students, who cite them on biased papers that are minor nothing burgers.
Second problem: the club colludes on some arguable real work and pads the paper.
Peer reviewed wallpaper that is published to safeguard those who should perish.
Oh, and ‘minor innovations’? Ha ha ha.
Well done,
No, professors don’t commonly plagiarize (by which I think you mean stole the ideas of) their graduate students. When a student does worthwhile research — usually part of a thesis — it’s common for them and their supervising professor to publish the results together in a journal, with the student’s name first.
Given that theses become part of the permanent record of a university, it would be pretty easy to show that a professor plagiarized a student, and that professor would be out on their ass.
I’m sure it’s been done, but a professor would be risking their career.
OK. That is a fair rebuttal to my point, but it does not address the fact that most “incremental, innovative, advancements” to the given science in question is full of wallpaper, biased noise that merely serves to advance or preserve tenured and post doctoral slaves of the tenured, to avoid perishing, and is not advancing anything other than dubious careers.
The system stinks.
Einstein needed a pencil and a brain, not a grant or some big equipment.
He also only needed 2 papers.
Ditto most of the big, real innovators prior to the government grant system for the trough industry.
“Scientists often have deleted the data underlying the images, making misconduct harder to prove and casting doubt on the validity of the research.”
What was Warwick Hughes told?
“Why should we give you the data? you just want to find something wrong with it”.
Climatology has lead the way,worked real well for all the bureaucrats involved,why would other bureaucrats (government funded scientists) not copy such a success?
Policy based evidence manufacturing,will always support the governments policies..
What a surprise.