Recently, we learned that science mega-publisher Wiley had retracted over 11,300 apparently compromised papers and closed four journals — and is about to close 19 more, due to “large-scale research fraud.”

We also learned last week that physicists are struggling under a welter of “problematic papers and poorly documented data”:

Last week, around 50 physicists, scientific journal editors, and emissaries from the National Science Foundation gathered at the University of Pittsburgh to discuss the best way forward.“To be honest, we’ve let it go a little too long,” says physicist Sergey Frolov of the University of Pittsburgh, one of the conference organizers.

Sophia Chen, “A wave of retractions is shaking physics,” MIT Technology Review, May 15, 2024

Yes, they have indeed let it go too long. The blizzard of bogus papers and retractions is probably not the direct cause of increasing public skepticism about science because most people don’t know that much about it yet. But knowing more would just confirm and strengthen existing suspicions.

There has also been an increase in retractions in chemistry, traced to research fraud. (Chemistry World, 2023). And in life sciences too.

As Retraction Watch’s Ivan Oransky notes, “On its face, the increase in retractions is good: a sign that science is becoming more scrutinized and rigorous, and that scientific publishing is doing its job.” But, as he then goes on to say, it’s hardly that simple. New factors such as paper mills and fake personas are spiking the numbers of retractable papers, perhaps beyond what current resources to fight the problem can handle.

How journals get compromised

At American Council on Science and Health, Cameron English advocates something of a “scorched earth” policy in response. He sees a rise in partisan advocacy as part of the problem:

Gone are the days when science journals focused on science. If you open a peer-reviewed publication in 2024, you’re just as likely to read an ill-informed opinion piece defending organic farming, gun control and even outright Marxism as you are original research. Science, formerly one of the top journals in the world, recently argued that we should “teach indigenous knowledge alongside science” in public schools, and the journal’s editor Holden Thorp seems to think that just about everybody can be identified as a scientist. As my colleagues Drs. Henry Miller and Chuck Dinerstein recently observed, Thorp believes that everyone deserves a trophy.

Cameron English, “We Need Fewer Scientists, And Fewer Science Journals,” American Council on Science and Health, May 14, 2024

Impassioned partisans are not expected to display as much accuracy as impartial arbiters. So those scientists who heed the urging of reformers to “take a stand!” trade away something in the process — something best expressed in the adage, “If the facts support you, just state the facts.”

Making us pay twice

English notes that academic journals are in a compromised ethical position to begin with, given their business model: selling the public information that the public has paid for already:

These billion-dollar corporations fill their journals with studies largely funded by taxpayers. They then sell the research results back to publicly funded university libraries, which pay massive subscription fees to journals like Nature. Or, on the open-access model, scientists pay publication fees directly to the journals. Most of this research is questionable at best and critically flawed at worst, and the majority of it is never cited or even read by other scientists. Unsurprisingly, SpringerNature, which publishes the Nature family of journals, is eager to keep this grossly inequitable business model in place

English, “Fewer Science Journals”

It’s profitable but is it fair? He offers two proposed solutions, one of which is likely to be quite popular with the science-minded lay public: Insist that publicly funded science be open access. When we get to see more of it, more of us will see the problems that are leading to so many retractions. And, you never know, some of us may be able to offer valuable input.

Trimming the number of scientists?

English’s other key proposal is to just reduce the number of scientists, “struggling to publish their next paper and secure another grant to keep their careers alive.” If you are inclined to bet, bet on more scientists supporting the free-papers proposal than this one. They are sure to point out that a spike in retractions has already unfairly penalized the honest scientist, in terms of loss of overall reputation of the discipline.

One thing that won’t help at all is current top down efforts to combat misinformation. For one thing, a great deal of misinformation has turned out to come from approved sources. And most of it is probably never “retracted,” just papered over. Maybe science disciplines can dig their way out of this hole so don’t let authorities make it any deeper.