This must be how a lot of creation “science” nonsense gets published.

I have just written the world’s worst science research paper: More than incompetent, it’s a mess of plagiarism and meaningless garble. Now science publishers around the world are clamouring to publish it. They will distribute it globally and pretend it is real research, for a fee. It’s untrue? And parts are plagiarized? They’re fine with that.

Welcome to the world of science scams, a fast-growing business that sucks money out of research, undermines genuine scientific knowledge, and provides fake credentials for the desperate. And even veteran scientists and universities are unaware of how deep the problem runs.



  1. McCullough says:

    Shut up already…it’s Science!

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior art and cultur critic says:

    Thanks. I didn’t know this.

    Very similar to Vanity Press?

    I doubt this not a significant issue for “real” scientists though. There are reputable journals, and then those you haven’t heard of.

    But like Vanity Press—you pay to have your article printed?

    Puleaaaase.

    Fraud so obvious is still fraud, but its a whole lot of something else. At least idiot blogs are free?

    AGW anyone?

    • tim says:

      gimme my warming back, warming back, warming back Gores…
      he sounds just like algore… get in my trust fund!

      I don’t think you have rights to view/review/show/… any of that AIs’ fake research papers… You will hear from a copy-write troll. you go now.

    • dusanmal says:

      “Reputable” journals are the worst if you have any idea of what is happening. People are naturally suspicious of less-well-known sources but even supposed “cream of the crop” Science and Nature have had recent revelations of nonsense-“work” leaking through.
      There are bad people in Science as much as in any other field. When they subvert the system, real good working people have no option but attempt at whistleblowing, which rarely works in such hierarchical setup.
      Another layer are ideologists. In no sane “peer reviewed” system could the paper be published where conclusions were drawn with openly stated 400% “author fudge factor”. Yet, if it is NOAA people publishing and results are in sync with ideology of the day – YAY! (Applies to the NOAA paper on which Al Gore based his [further exaggerated] hockey-stick graph of global warming.)
      And this goes further than publishing into funding and work itself (CERN ban on interpretation of Cloud Experiment data in 2011) – if fact does not fit ideology, damn with the facts, ban them.
      This is the case for ban on Governmental funded science. As long as Government funds it, tow the ideological line or else…

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        Hey Duce–that all sounds reasonable to me.

        Now….. how many reputable journals do you think require a payment from the submitting authors?

        Give me a percentage rounded to the nearest zero.

        Go===========>

        ….. and sorry about that double negative above. you’se guys are so astute! …. and polite….. or … tired from carrying that bag?

        • MikeN says:

          Lots of reputable journals require payment. Charges based on number of color photos, figures, etc. This is a big problem for many people to get published if there is no university to cover the charges.

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            Mickey….. where are you stumbling? Is it over what “lots” means or is it what “reputable” means?

            Actually, this is weird: I don’t think you are this stupid. More an off sense of humor? Well!–I have a new found appreciation for you.

            Its good you aren’t this stupid. NOW, we only need to work on your sense of humor. What comedians do you enjoy?

            ……………….. any?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

            Your link won’t open. Found this looking at their website:

            AGU editors welcome contributions from authors throughout the world. The decision to accept a contribution for publication is made by the journal editor solely on the basis of suitability of subject matter to the focus of the journal, originality of the contribution, and scientific merit.

            Are they lying?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

            Re your second link, it opens. “Sounds like” AGU is free for STUDIES they choose to publish but they do charge a fee for anyone who wants to have their own comments published? A disincentive for sure but doesn’t sound like anyone is being charged in order to be “published.” Its not clear though. Kinda of a mutant half-breed?

          • MikeN says:

            Sounds like reading comprehension problems for you. As usual, only now you have internet browsing problems as well.

  3. B. Dog says:

    When cut and paste is too much work for funsters, there’s a computer program out there to automatically make gibberish papers:

    http://nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763

  4. pedro says:

    What’s the deal? It works for global warming!

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      You Lie!!

      • Greg Allen says:

        Pedro’s pants are seriously on fire!

        • pedro says:

          A grieving AGW just chimed in

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

          Oh Greg!!!

          You are always just too kind and charitable!

          Like a brain, Pedro can only wish he had a pair of pants, and matches or a source of fire? Way too high tech.

          No, Greg, not everyone is just like you and me.

          Poor Pedro.

          • pedro says:

            “No, Greg, not everyone is just like you and me.”

            Indeed, only idiots are as gullible as you two

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            Pedro–we are only idiots if AGW proves to be a fraud on the public.

            I will change my mind on the subject when the majority of qualified scientist provide an alternative theory as to why/how adding co2 to the atmosphere will not heat up the earth.

            What evidence/occurrence would you need to see to agree that AGW is underway currently at a gallop?

            MSNBC has taken an interesting cut at the issue. Big Oil is spending BILLIONS per year to discover further carbon reserves BUT given the science behind AGW, we are going to poison ourselves if we dig up and burn ONLY 20% OF THE PROVEN RESERVES WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT.

            Ain’t that sumthing?

            The analogy was that SLAVERY was the only other “close” analogy to our business overlords being forced to give up a profitable enterprise for the benefit of the rest of the 99.9%.

            Its retards like you Pedro that can’t do this simple math. Call me Pedro, but I am still holding out that Tim’s Devo commentary is some kind of tanget I haven’t figured out.

            Prospects are dim.

          • pedro says:

            There is no “if” to your idiocy. It has been extensively proven in this blog

          • jpfitz says:

            Poor poor Pedro. Idiots pants are aflame.

            https://youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            Excellent videos jp, thanks. So, even the American Petroleum Institute says maybe now.

            EVERY single reputable source of scientist groups (ie–not an individual rogue acting alone) says AGW is happening or is neutral on the issue. I’ve read that before.

            I’ve long been posting: “Whats the alternative theory?” /// Mickey did come up with an alternate theory: yes agw is true, but its happening slower.

            Eyes wide open–marching to the Abyss. Sad for me as I posted about a month ago: the SCIENCE really is adding up to extinction of life, NOT just collapse of our civilization.

            IN EXTREMIS….. would we set off 10 nuclear bombs in the middle of the Sahara Desert to blast particulate into the sky to cool us off?

            Our grandkiddies will have that choice.

            Not rational to take comfort in “possible” theoretical off ramps to mass life extinction when every action right now is full tilt in the wrong direction.

            Science deniers. Ain’t that something. The brain being an evolutionary dead end.

            Silly sad hoomans. rip.

          • Tim says:

            But jp, wasn’t the guy subtly pointing out that those are the things that needed to be said to be possible for the future for sacrifice {to The State} to be accepted now?

            I probably missed something… I’m still trying to find a racist gif, or something to link to.

          • pedro says:

            Sorry to have forgotten you jp. You are also an idiot.

            Hope you’re happy now

          • jpfitz says:

            Yes, Pedro I feel better now.

          • jpfitz says:

            Bobbo, I like your Extremis idea. But once the sand particles are up, how do we get the silica out of orbit once we’re at the temp desired.

            So your idea points to the planet warming? Isn’t the govt spraying particulates into the lower atmosphere right now? We have high flying jets overhead flying in parallel and perpendicular patterns creating trails that expand into clouds. A sunny day soon turns overcast. What’s that about?

          • jpfitz says:

            Timmy, yes, the fellow in the vid is making the point that we all must consider the possibility of a earth out of it’s natural climate changes BECAUSE of spewing unnatural, meaning, excess natural elements into the air, sea, and land. Humans removing natural elements off the planet exasperating the combined effect.
            I don’t know if you know who the brit in the vid is, if not, check out a show produced across the pond called

    • Tim says:

      No it doesn’t. Those computer models aren’t even very good at saying why they borked. Excuse me… I have to go see this fuckbag-ferry VP about his rocket pube theory of gay… I’m gettin’ kinda antsy here.

  5. noname says:

    Another aspect of human endeavor flummoxed by lack of integrity, go figure!

    Does it mean all scientific papers are bogus? Science deniers are still debating “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica”.

    Stupid is as stupid does…

  6. But, if it was written thousands of years ago by people determined by the Church to be “truth-tellers,” it MUST be true! That’s why we all accept the science of astrology as an important field of study through which we receive important messages from the Creator of the Universe.

    Thank God at least some science is solid!

    • noname says:

      Some science is solid and some is liquid, like Hydrostatics!

      Welcome to the ever growing world of dishonest capitalism!!

      In Uncle Dave “article”

      “Now science publishers … are clamoring to publish it.

      They will …. pretend it is real research, for a FEE.”

      Legitimate publishers never require payment from their authors (kinda like DU)!

      Have you ever heard of University of Phoenix? Only 15% of UoP students ever graduate. UoP is a scam, like so many other diploma mill institutions. Anyone can get a degree from UoP without learning anything!

  7. Greg Allen says:

    I teach information literacy in the schools and, I gotta say, this is a problem for students.

    Yes, experts know the legitimate journals but students probabably don’t.

    It’s another reason to ban students from using Google! Make them go straight to the proprietary databases.

    • noname says:

      Yes, make those poor dumb bastards pay for “proprietary databases” access!

      Fortunately, I get some free access to “legitimate” journal publications where I work. I believe most if not all reputable 4 yrs. universities also have similar arrangements.

      Yes, Legitimate publishers never require payment from their authors; but, they do require a fee to read/download published papers that they themselves never financed, so at-least it’s “reputable” racketeering!

      Sad Aaron Swartz died for his efforts at Fair Access to Science and Technology Research particularly if it is taxpayer-funded research!

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        What do the costs of publishing have to do with financing the research paper?

        You got some nice dots….. but no connections.

        • noname says:

          Huh? booboo always dullard, you amaze me, “no connections”.

          Obviously you accept the scam “legitimate” publishers use, charging people 30 bucks or more (more than most books) to access a paper that only 5 pages long, that cost them nothing!

          This is why Aaron Swartz died for his efforts at Fair Access to Science and Technology Research particularly if it is taxpayer-funded research!

          “Legitimate” publishers never require payment from their authors, this is true. These same “Legitimate” publishers charge ~30$ for web access to read one paper, that’s the scam.

          This post is about other kind of publishers who charges authors to publish their work (worthy work or not) and also charge same as the Legitimate” publishers do, web access fee to read the one paper.

          Science is indeed very profitable!

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            noname–its one thing to be wrong on first impression and utterance but when you attention is drawn to the issue and you double down, that is what the publishing industry calls: A Full Pedro.

            noname says:
            4/23/2014 at 4:45 am

            Huh? booboo always dullard, you amaze me, “no connections”.

            Obviously you accept the scam “legitimate” publishers use, charging people 30 bucks or more (more than most books) to access a paper that only 5 pages long, that cost them nothing! //// It costs money to publish a magazine/journal of record. That is why so many are going out of business or trying to transition to a web only presence. I have seen single article fee arrangements but the great majority are subscription fees so your $30 would be for ALL their articles ever published for some period of time.

            This is why Aaron Swartz died for his efforts at Fair Access to Science and Technology Research particularly if it is taxpayer-funded research! /// Different issues.

            “Legitimate” publishers never require payment from their authors, this is true. These same “Legitimate” publishers charge ~30$ for web access to read one paper, that’s the scam. /// A service transparent on its face and in operation that charges more money than you wish to pay is not a scam.

            This post is about other kind of publishers who charges authors to publish their work (worthy work or not) and also charge same as the Legitimate” publishers do, web access fee to read the one paper. //// Exactly so.

            So no name: just as I stated. I think you have in mind web based resources but they too would have some minimum expenses that would need to be covered. But prove me wrong: what percentage of industry leading respected journals do not have a printed journal of reference that justifies their charging for access to it?

            Science is indeed very profitable!

          • noname says:

            booboo I am not the only one here calling you on your B.S.

            publishing industry calls: A Full Pedro.

            I think, this is what D.U. calls: A Full bobbo!

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            ……. derivative.

      • jpfitz says:

        I too would like to have free access to taxpayer funded scientific papers. I have come across many I’d like to read but was asked for a key code or to pay a fee. To tell you the truth I don’t know if the fee was for all I could eat or just for the paper I was interested in.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      Just saw all four Puke candidates for Senator from South Carolina say they did not believe in Global Warming.

      Believing Aliens are doing it is actually a big step better.

      Silly Hoomans.

    • MikeN says:

      Considering the policy impact, I would consider that the preferable position for a politician to have.

      All it takes is for one link in the chain to be wrong for the whole thing to fall apart, for example the impact of clouds, which the IPCC papers over as there is lots of uncertainty, but is the difference between catastrophe and nothing to worry about.

  8. MikeN says:

    Bobbo has endorsed the idea that using gasoline is tantamount to owning slaves. Anyone else?

    • bobbo, the Climate Change ALARMIST who doesn't want his kiddies boiled to death as the Oilgarchs are currently Hell Bent on doing, and the Science Denying Far Right are ignorantly supporting says:

      Close Mikey. The more interesting similarity not of my own construct is that OWNING AND PROFITING from selling carbon will be as hard to stop as was owning and profiting from owning slaves.

      The whole point being that when the oligarchy is making money off something, its hard to get them to give it up voluntarily. IE===we are all doomed. This time, it won’t be a civil war with 500K dead, it will be 96% of the species on earth, or if we are lucky, just hooman civilization.

      You are right: the difference between being right or wrong.

      ……………….and the sea level keeps going up:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

      • MikeN says:

        Hayes says slaves were the source of energy before fossil fuels. So fossil fuel energy allowed for the abolition of slavery.

        • IG Farben says:

          Whale Oil has been shown to burn slightly brighter than people — The only reason we use people is that it’s hard to get whales to willingly jam the vats…

    • Cliven Bundy CEO RCA and CowTech says:

      bobbo would probably have been better off re-gunning crts and sitting on the porch spending quality time with the rest of his extended family — like pedro.

      http://infowars.com/cliven-bundy-responds-to-new-york-times-racism-report/

      • bobbo, the Climate Change ALARMIST who doesn't want his kiddies boiled to death as the Oilgarchs are currently Hell Bent on doing, and the Science Denying Far Right are ignorantly supporting says:

        Raise your hand: who here does’t think Clive is an old fuddy duddy racist?

        When you say blacks were better off on or enjoyed the benefits of slavery–you are a racist.

        When you say that “everyone” who benefits from a government program is a slave–you are a Republican.

        See the difference?

        Me neither.

        • Tim says:

          I don’t think he’s an old fuddy-duddy racist.. In fact, I don’t think his vernacular is very far off from mine; And in another point-of-fact, we are all slaves. Only now, we feed and house ourselves instead of republicans having to feed and house us.

          I do indeed hold that governments are a lie — so, when someone says “yell it to the anarchist” over this race-baiting, leaving the ship {YOU, Rand Who?} … nigger, please.

          • bobbo, the Climate Change ALARMIST who doesn't want his kiddies boiled to death as the Oilgarchs are currently Hell Bent on doing, and the Science Denying Far Right are ignorantly supporting says:

            Hey Timmmmmmay—how long you been holding back?

            “You had me at: I don’t think.”

            So, lets parse this a bit????

            1. “We are all slaves.” //// Ok. but not all slaves to the same thing? So–the statement is meaningless either in that it applies to all of us, or that it has not been further particularized to make it relevant. Please fix that.

            2. Only now, we feed and house ourselves instead of republicans having to feed and house us. /// If we feed and house ourselves, how is that a condition of slavery? When did republicans EVER feed and house us? MORE DETAIL please as right now, you are sounding like a racist: ie, pure gibberish.

            3. I do indeed hold that governments are a lie /// Wha…..? Gubment does exist, so in what sense are they a lie?? In fact, any two or more people form a gubment depending on how fancy you want to get. Do you mean that all gubments lie? Well…. of course they do, being made up of people and all. What part of reality upsets you…. but more importantly, what is your alternative??

            4. so, when someone says “yell it to the anarchist” over this race-baiting, leaving the ship {YOU, Rand Who?} … nigger, please. …/// I assume with the words that got left out as you feverishly typed, that there is a discernible idea here?? Please redraft. How did you know I was an African American?

            ….. Ha, ha. I do crack myself up.

          • Tim says:

            “…but more importantly, what is your alternative??

            IDK, go somewhere that has legitimate government or no government {HA!}? —

            from some nut on the Daily Paul

            **The intellectual realizes that we are already living without government. We only have criminals fraudulently claiming to be government.

            **Every single man and women who claims to be operating under Constitutional capacity is in violation of the Constitutional tender law by being paid in a unlawful tender that is a private bank’s fraudulent debt note. This fact proves that indeed beyond all reasonable doubt there is literally not one single man or woman actually within the defined capacity of government. This is fact regardless of how brainwashed anyone is. This clear understanding is where the pseudo intellectuals will arrive when they graduate to being a true intellectual.

            http://dailypaul.com/317343/any-articulate-intelligent-people#comment-3390734

            Besides, I just don’t like it very much — nothing but lies, sucking in innocents. Like EPA calling co2 a pollutant. Like FDA stomping on natural and shoving poison. … If some tenticle of ‘us government’ has letters in the name then the agency is illegitimate. It is not here to help. It is not here to protect. It is not here for justice. It is a lie and dejecting to see so many hold onto it. It is here as malignant cancer to the Individual. Unfortunately, most *subjects* are not individuals. They are like crabs in a bucket: If ever one moves to crawl out all the others pull him back in.

          • Tim says:

            “”I assume with the words that got left out as you feverishly typed, that there is a discernible idea here?? Please redraft. How did you know I was an African American?

            I was *self-commisurating* at Paul {Rand who?}. Sorry. bobbo, everyone already knows you’re an Inuit, anyways.

          • Tim says:

            Incidentally, is this really the correct use of ‘an’ before the inclusion?

            I’m an African American.
            I’m an Inuit.
            I’m an White. — Hmm. one of these things is not like the others.

          • Tim says:

            People are not going to get away from ‘ra ra, thatta mah team’ but, that doesn’t mean I won’t condemn them for it later.

            ‘right wing’ dogma on government:

            “But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.” (2 Peter 2:10)

            ‘left wing’ dogma on government:

            “sut uup slab, gobment gives me stuff and i’m intidedled because the did me wrong to srart.

          • bobbo, the only true Libertarian who Dithers with the comic book versions posting here says:

            Hey Timmy—you gotta stop enjoying the way your tongue feels when you talk and start thinking a bit more. I know you can do it. Actually forming positions that are actionable is hard…. at the start. After that, then you can deal with most other people disagreeing with you.

            But you have to have “a position” to start with. One you can defend without resort to talking points, bumper stickers, and in your case: tangents.

            Your references tend to center on no analysis at all but rather just a plangorous retreat into private laguage: we do have a gubment in the USA and it is under the constitution. Noticing the corruption so saying it doesn’t exist is for naive idiots who wish to keep themselves out of the process, out of reality. You know—most libertarians and teapublicans.

            I assume you know “an” is the indefinite participle to be used before a vowel, or even vowel sound so that many words beginning with “ha” are included, some “y’s” as well…. although I may have that wrong. Its just a man made rule many of which don’t make any sense. Might move some to say: there is no such thing as grammar?

            I don’t know if I’m happy or sad you challenge my core belief in the equality of man. Nature vs Nurture, History rolling thru the generations, recognizing one’s own good luck, empathy for those who didn’t get the same breaks. Stuff like that. …. all while maintaining individuals are responsible for what they do… and say.

            Come to think of it, you challenge my AGW position too.

            Whats my third hot button again….oh yeah… religion. Next you’ll be saying you are a Southern Baptist? Ha, ha.

            Yes: First I learned religion be crazy. Got kicked out of Sunday School for being disruptive when asking where all the water came from. Second, good old racism. Silly to think xyz means abc. I thought the first one up myself, daddy taught me the second one. Is hard to make a team out of thinking for one’s self. Third one: AGW. Its just one example of controlling what we think by selecting what we think. SCIENCE: open to new ideas as new ideas/facts are presented. Science Deniers: I already got an idea in my head and there’s no room for another one.

            What do you think Timmy? Pick one. Take a position. And its ok to be unsure, to see the ambiguities. That only means you aren’t balls to the wall on a subject, and only lean in a certain direction.

            I’m a liberal…. but I don’t think people should be given anything because they “deserve” it for past transgressions (that would be too Catholic). No, I PRAGMATICALLY say give those unemployable louts enough so they don’t break into my house. That is cheaper than funding a police force necessary to acheive the same ends. See how that works?

            Same with most social issues. But those not on mah team see it differently in a number of ways.

            Silly Hoomans.

          • Tim says:

            Yes. Southern Baptist — It is true. How many years have I spent in guilt and fear of the fires of hell every time my load shot out onto the bathroom mirror?? I can’t count that high. Still, it helps me to sift through dogma now.

        • bobbo, the only true Libertarian who Dithers with the comic book versions posting here says:

          Braggart! Better than a slippery floor I suppose.

  9. MikeN says:

    Someone got a 100 year old error in Oxford Dictionary removed. A siphon doesn’t run with atmospheric pressure, but gravity.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/24/friday-funny-giant-sucking-sound-over-siphoning-definition/

    In comments, people are saying this paper should not have been published.