Deliberately Added Errors To Avoid Criticisms

I should have titled this thread "Trust The Science".

The way I look at it, it's better than following the politician's advice, one of whom stated that maybe drinking bleach would ward off covid.  Nothing involving other people is ever perfect.  The fact that this is coming to light is an indication that the current system works somewhat.

@artisan-radio Well yeah, but that nonsense Trump spewed out really doesn't have a comparison to legitimate chemist intentionally choosing to acknowledge facts they know are not accurate simply to avoid making waves or delaying their publications.

With Trump's comment it was just a goofy thing, but if chemist are actually keeping silent about data they knew w full well as false, well that's just dangerous.

One of the dangerous things about that study is that there is no analysis of what the results of introducing the false data were.  Did they substantially change the conclusions of the papers?  Or was it just petty politics and/or ego (both of which are in abundance in the research community)?

If you don't know that, then the results of the study are meaningless.

@artisan-radio Well the article does say a third of the chemist said an error should be corrected only if it changes the conclusions of the paper. 

But.. Seems to me the known errors should be correct regardless. It may not change the particular papers conclusions, but the incorrect data it contains could easily affect other research and studies that take that peer reviewed data as accurate.

I just don't comprehend why any data they know is not accurate would be considered to be ok to simply shrugged off and essentially condoned.

What difference does it make if the false data affected the source papers final conclusion or not? It shouldn't be acceptable.

You've got a good point.

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but the study was about identified potential 'errors' in papers arising out of peer (or other) review.  That could be data errors, or in assumptions, or perhaps even somewhere else such as process.

It's the researchers themselves that are the target of this study.  The research field is full of contentious topics - what is fact and obvious to one person might be incorrect to another.  That's ignoring the current political situation, which is influencing research more and more, particularly in what topics are even being looked at.

I took the study to say that researchers are giving in on some parts of their papers in the face of criticism from other researchers to get those papers published more quickly.  It might not mean that data is being falsified; that definitely should not be allowed to occur.

IMO, the situation would be unique for each research topic and paper, but I would rather research be published, even if additional unwanted changes are forced into it, than not.  Any research worth its salt would be duplicated and expanded upon many times before being accepted, and surely any issues would come out at that point.

Research that isn't published is worthless.

Well these are published, that's the whole point, the papers in question were those which had been published in journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry or the American Chemical Society between 2020 and 2023. And it doesn't say anything about "potential 'errors' , it flat out says they do contain errors which other chemist intentionally opt to ignore to avoid conflict, and what's more, other chemist knowingly incorporate inaccurate data into their own papers (intentionally) because they know if they don't it would cause major delays in being published!

That's what the article says! 

Yes, add this to the sheer level of outright fraud in the "science" world. There has been a number of articles about it the last couple of years. The science world lacks a great deal of humility. Can't imagine why.

The world saturated with it, politics, science, medical, churches, schools, cults, history, etc. Any foundation of such so very much is based primarily on propaganda and status quos. 

It's always good to read/view anything with skepticism, no matter what the source.

But that doesn't mean that you reject everything either.  The anti-science agendas of today's politics and politicians is, quite frankly, disgusting.  Diseases that were eradicated, or almost eradicated, are coming back.   Prejudice and hatred are rearing their ugly heads.  Climate change, which needed more action, is receiving less.  I fear for the world.

You're always going to get the scientific outliers, quacks and charlatans.  But that doesn't invalidate the rest of the work being done (and that has been done).

@artisan-radio Oh I agree with you completely! I'm in no way suggesting one should start rejecting conclusions of studies and investigations and so forth - that would be ridiculous, I'm just saying what you see or what's presented as factual is not necessarily accurate just because the system of thing says they are, and it's better taken with a grain of salt, because everything is tainted to a certain degree.

@artisan-radio The antiscience is mostly from right wing conservative politicians....no I'm not getting political...but they are the ones that don't accept science and are the ones that deny when scientists know a lot more than they do and the scientists have no agenda to falsify something. The truth is the truth and deniers have no grounds to dispute what people that know a lot more than them know.
We have a conservative government here in Canada that if elected would do what Trump is doing...reverse environmental regulations, allow corporations to pollute more, get the environment out of the way of development, open up all protected land. The deniers unfortunately get into power. And they are the antiscience ones.
We had to fight Doug Ford here in Ontario to preserve the Greenbelt from development.
Scientists have no reason to lie or falsify anything. They work for the corporations or the government doing their studies and both don't want to hear the truth which is what they are saying about where this earth is heading. Everyone that employs scientists to do a study would love to hear all is good, keep going like you are going.
As for vaccines and all this about the deniers that have all these nutty theories that they think about what they are doing to us don't understand all the horrible diseases like polio and much more that have been irraticated(don't care about spelling) and what those diseases do to you. Some think that the vaccines have some ingredient in them that is there to kill us to sell some product to save us. What nonsense.

I think you might be misinterpreting my point a little bit. 

Every generation has different perspectives and beliefs, what's taken as accepted today was unacceptable 100 years ago, even 50 years ago, and 100 years from now what's accepted today will be unacceptable then, and the foundations of beliefs for whatever the era is always based on, and to an extent controlled by whatever the status quo of the era. This applies to practically everything - politics, science, medical, churches, schools, cults, history, etc.