Abstract:

The

---

 

---

Content

 

() Science and Magic

() Vivid example of magic in science: Non- deterministic Quantum Mechanics

() Science conference: scientific forum or paid sightseeing tour?

() Unfair trade: interesting scientific presentation vs. boring sightseeing tour

() Bureaucratic ladder for scientific presentations: poster, oral, invited, plenary etc.

() Fake and hype research

() 2nd harmonic measurement of field- like torque and damp- like torque as a vivid example of hype and fake research.

() 6 features of hype and fake research

() Can AI recognize and detect fake and hyped research?

() Why not take action to stop this fake research?

() Boss vs. Laws of Physics

() Should a professor of Physics know Physics?

() Should persons who publish 30 or more scientific papers per year, 90% of which they did not read and none of which they understand, face severe consequences for mocking science?

() Professor of Physics versus Artificial Intelligence (AI) versus Nature

() Professor of Physics versus Artificial Intelligence (AI):

() A Professor versus Nature:

() Current Relationship Between Scientists and Bureaucrats: Mutual Deception: I am cheating you, you are cheating me.

() "Scientists" Cheating Bureaucrats

() Bureaucrats Cheating Scientists

() Why does Einstein have a Nobel Prize, but I don't? Even though my IQ and citation indexes are 100 times higher than Einstein's?

.........

---

---

 

(fact): five millions of scientific papers were published in 2023. What part of them are Fake, Fraud and Highlight papers? 99%? 99.9%?

 

Sabine Hossenfelder:	Paul M. Sutter:
Alarming: Fraud spreads in Science -- and I fear it will become worse	What's Wrong With Modern Science And How To Fix It.

 

 

---

Science and Magic

There is a very complex aspect of the relationship between science and people.Most people are seeking and thirsting for magic in science, something contrary to the principles on which science is based. Science relies on facts, reason, and logic. However, when something that appears to be magical is logically explained based on factual evidence, it often loses its appeal and becomes uninteresting to people. Conversely, when there is even a slight possibility of magic existing in science, people are eager to engage with it and study it.

It is similar to magician tricks in the circus. As long as the mechanisms behind the tricks are unknown, the magician tricks are intriguing and captivate our imagination. However, as soon as the mechanisms of the tricks become clear, people lose all interest in them.

Furthermore, there are two types of people: those who suspect there must be a reasonable explanation behind magician tricks before knowing the mechanism, and those who sincerely believe in the "true" magic of the tricks, even when confronted with explanations. The existence of magic is absolutely acceptable for them.

 

Vivid example of magic in science: Non- deterministic Quantum Mechanics

The belief in the principles of non-deterministic quantum mechanics mirrors this situation with magician tricks in the circus. While some individuals suspect that there must be a rational explanation without resorting to the magic of non-deterministic quantum mechanics, others cling to the belief in magic in science that no amount of reasoning, arguments, explanations, or experimental facts will ever convince them otherwise.

A century ago, when Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity emerged, many people regarded them as approved magic in science. Niels Bohr's non-deterministic interpretation enhanced this perception even further to the edge of absurdity. People were drawn to this interpretation because it represented magic in science or something entirely incomprehensible.

The purpose of arguments from Einstein and Schrödinger to Niels Bohr was to demonstrate that both Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity are grounded in facts, reasons, symmetries, and conservation laws. They are as far from magic as it is possible to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Science conference: scientific forum or paid sightseeing tour?

I am acquainted with several researchers who, while on official conference trips, perceive attending conference presentations as a personal insult, often opting instead for trivial sightseeing tours. Yet, upon returning to their research institutes, they lament profusely and are wet from their tears, shedding tears at every turn, claiming that attending numerous scientific conferences is indispensable for honing their scientific skills

 

g

Unfair trade: interesting scientific presentation vs. boring sightseeing tour

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bureaucratic ladder for scientific presentations: poster, oral, invited, plenary etc.

Modern professors and top academics have established a bureaucratic hierarchy for scientific presentations at conferences, with certain types considered prestigious while others are not. The type of presentation reflects the presenter's position on this bureaucratic ladder. In descending order, these presentation types are: plenary, invited, oral, and poster presentations.

 

(plenary talk):

A plenary presentation is typically delivered by a high-ranking figure or a top boss with limited scientific expertise. It often includes a blend of unfunny jokes, science fiction stories, unrealistic promises, which no one intends to keep, and a sprinkling of genuine scientific content prepared by subordinates.

Is it worth attending such a presentation?

Absolutely. It's incredibly fascinating to observe the reactions of the audience during these talks.

You'll notice smiles on the faces of scientists who are amused by the scientific knowledge level of their superiors. Young students exhibit surprise at the unexpected nonsensical aspects that occasionally surface from top-level bosses.

However, the most intriguing reactions come from lower-ranking bureaucrats. They eagerly watch, dreaming of climbing the bureaucratic ladder throughout their careers. They envision themselves delivering similar presentations, cracking unfunny jokes, and having the audience pretend to laugh at them someday when they reach the top.

 

(invited talk):

An invited talk

(oral talk):

An oral talk

(poster presentation):

The poster session is the most interesting part of any scientific conference. It's a place where one can engage in heated scientific discussions, encounter challenging yet fascinating questions, and receive friendly yet constructive feedback on their research.

Another notable advantage of the poster session is the absence of professors and top academics. They often view attending the poster session as a slight to their status and as a personal abuse fearing it might portray them as lower-ranking bureaucrats. Furthermore, they are apprehensive about showcasing their potential lack of scientific and engineering knowledge to a general audience.

 

Conference format: virtual or in- person?

 

 

 

 

---

---

 

Fake and hype research

 

 

 

 

2nd harmonic measurement of field- like torque and damp- like torque as a vivid example of hype and fake research.

2nd harmonic measurement is an excellent example of a hyped and fake research, because it encapsulates all the known features of such misleading research.

 

The falsity of the torque interpretation of the 2nd harmonic measurement is abundantly clear and unequivocally proven. Virtually every researcher in the field is aware of its fraudulent nature, yet it continues to persist and thrive.

Details about the 2nd harmonic measurements and its incorrect interpretation based on the damp- like and field- like torques are here.

Abundant experimental evidence contradicting the torque-based interpretation of 2nd harmonic measurements are here

 

If one is interested in studying the inception, sustenance, and demise of fake and hyped research, the 2nd harmonic measurement explained by field-like and damp-like torques serves as an excellent subject for such an inquiry. As of 2024, this fraudulent research continues to persist, despite the undeniable proof of the falsity of the torque interpretation of the 2nd harmonic measurement. Although the majority of researchers are aware of its fraudulent nature, the fake research remains prevalent, with periodic publications still emerging on this topic. This presents an opportune moment to interview researchers to understand why they continue to support such research and explore the factors contributing to the persistence and thriving of this fraudulent endeavor among different research groups.

 

 

 

 

6 features of hype and fake research

their implications in 2nd harmonic measurements

(feature 1 of hype and fake research): Fake research often originates from a genuine and accurate measurement, yet its interpretation is wholly incorrect. The incorrect interpretation is supported, because it allows constant reporting of mysterious and unexplainable results. Consequently, it facilitates numerous publications on the subject, inflates research indexes, and perpetuates a steady influx of government funding into such research topics.

(implementation in 2nd harmonic measurement): The 2nd harmonic measurement accurately evaluates the current-induced change in the perpendicular component of magnetization. The measurement itself is entirely correct. However, the provided explanation, which relies on the damp-like torque and field-like torque, is incorrect and absolutely unjustified.

(feature 2 of hype and fake research): The utilization of sophisticated terminology, fancy- sound names and terms, often bearing little or no correlation with the research topic, is a distinct feature of hype and fake research. These fancy words are employed to impress non-scientific individuals and bureaucratic figures within the scientific community, as well as to render the research topic more mysterious, unreachable and inaccessible to "simple" people.

(implementation in 2nd harmonic measurement): The terms "damp-like torque" and "field-like torque" are used for the incorrect explanation of the 2nd harmonic measurement. This flawed interpretation frequently leads to the discovery of purportedly new effects, distinguished only by their elaborate fancy names, which typically consist of combinations of words such as "spin," "torque," "current," "Hall," "enormous," "gigantic," and so on.

The existence of the field-like torque contradicts several conservation laws of quantum mechanics, rendering it a non-existent concept (see above). While the damp-like torque may have some applicability, it is not without limitations. Torque itself is not a subject of quantum mechanics; instead, quantum dynamics are typically described through quantum transitions. However, despite these limitations, the damp-like torque can still be employed within certain bounds.

(feature 3 of hype and fake research): Another distinguishing feature is that the majority of researchers are aware of the fraudulent nature of fake and hyped research. Despite this awareness, many researchers willingly acknowledge the existence of such deceptive studies and align their own interests with them. Simultaneously, there exists a correct explanation, supported by robust experimental and theoretical evidence. However, as long as the fraudulent research continues to yield benefits, it persists, often suppressing the correct explanation.

(implementation in 2nd harmonic measurement): A clear and straightforward correct explanation of the 2nd harmonic signal has been well-established since 2016. Direct measurements of each contribution to the 2nd harmonic signal have been documented in published papers and presented at top-rated conferences on Magnetism (such as MMM and Intermag). Despite the widespread awareness among researchers in the field regarding the fraudulent nature of the explanation rooted in "damp-like torque" and "field-like torque," publications and conference presentations based on this false interpretation continue to surface periodically up to the present day (2024).

(feature 4 of hype and fake research): Clear and understandable explanations pose the greatest threat to fake and hyped research. Such research deliberately avoids straightforward explanations at all costs. Instead, it employs tactics to evade the discussion of simple and easily understandable facts, while promoting complex, difficult-to-understand, and challenging-to-verify effects. These effects are often portrayed as well-known and self-evident, purportedly requiring no further explanation, justification, or proof.

(implementation in 2nd harmonic measurement): The faked interpretation of the 2nd harmonic measurement emphasizes that the 2nd harmonic data directly corresponds to the strength of the damp-like torque and field-like torque, presenting it as an indisputable fact beyond questioning or doubt. However, any specifics regarding why this is considered factual or what precisely constitutes the measured value corresponding to a torque remain elusive. Whether it pertains to the magnetic field utilized in torque descriptions within the Landau-Lifshitz equation, the angle of spin precession, or the alteration of anisotropy field (See more details here) , existing explanations are riddled with numerous complex and often incorrect details, seemingly designed to obfuscate rather than clarify the matter.

(feature 5 of hype and fake research): Usage of circle citation. Circular citation is a notable characteristic of fake research, employed to obscure a straightforward explanation. When the necessity for an explanation becomes unavoidable, citations are utilized, suggesting that the comprehensive explanation can be found in the referenced paper. However, upon scrutiny of the cited paper, it often diverges slightly from the previous topic, lacking the required explanation. Instead, it refers to yet another paper, which may be even more detached from the original subject. Consequently, the needed explanation remains elusive, seemingly resolved only through a chain of referenced papers.

(implementation in 2nd harmonic measurement): The circle citation is very popular in this fake research. The circle citation is often used when it is necessary to provide a simple sentence or two to justify the use of a specific formula or the discovery of a purportedly "new" torque or spin effect. Instead a citation to an article that supposedly explains everything is used. However, upon inspection of the cited article, one often finds either a tangential mention of the claim without substantive proof or a further citation, perpetuating the cycle of vague references.

(feature 6 of hype and fake research): Giving unrealistic promises, which nobody intends to keep. A significant portion of any presentation or paper related to fake and hyped research comprises numerous unrealistic promises, which nobody actually intends to fulfill. These often include science-fiction-like narratives, akin to Star Wars tales, depicting how the purported "fake research" will revolutionize the human race. These narratives typically lack any form of scientific evidence or justification. Moreover, the projected timelines for the realization of these promises are often exceedingly distant, spanning millions of years, rendering them effectively unverifiable. The primary target audience for such promises is often science bureaucrats whose scientific understanding is drawn largely from movies like Star Wars and similar science fiction films. These individuals are easily swayed by fantastical claims and seldom demand scientific justifications for such science fiction promises.

(implementation in 2nd harmonic measurement): Any presentation or paper on this fake topic often makes promises of delivering a super memory with an exceptionally efficient recording mechanism, purportedly due to the utilization of super-effective field-like torque or damp-like torque. However, in reality, the measured data of the 2nd harmonic bears only a distant relation to the effectiveness of data recording in a magnetic memory.

 

---

 

Can AI recognize and detect fake and hyped research?

I believe that in the future, AI may have the capability to do so. To achieve this, it's essential to identify the distinctive features and common characteristics of fake and hyped research. The study of 2nd harmonic measurements explained by field-like and damp-like torques provides an excellent subject for such analysis. This research area showcases many prominent features and frameworks typically associated with fake and hyped research.

If you consistently assert and provide evidence that the interpretation of 2nd harmonic measurements through field-like and damp-like torques is fraudulent, why not take action to stop it?

I do not want this fake research to die. I want it to live as long as possible. My intention isn't to see this fake research disappear. Rather, I advocate for its continuation for as long as possible. The interpretation of 2nd harmonic measurements through field-like and damp-like torques serves as a vivid and straightforward illustration of fake and hyped research, making it an invaluable case study. It should be scrutinized meticulously, with all its intricacies examined in detail. I guess the future fake research will be hidden in more sophisticated forms. By thoroughly understanding the general features and framework of fake research, we can better equip ourselves to identify and combat more sophisticated future iterations. Therefore, it's crucial to establish methods for recognizing fake research by thoroughly investigating present, simpler, and already well-known examples.

---

 

Boss vs. Laws of Physics

Can a high-ranking boss in the scientific community alter a law of physics at their whim? The answer is not as straightforward as one might assume.

 

Allow me to recount a true story that occurred at a poster session during one large and famous scientific conference:

I came across a poster presented by a student from a famous institution detailing measurements of field-like torque and damp-like torque using the 2nd harmonic method on some fancy and intricate samples. Curious, I approached the student and inquired whether he was aware that this interpretation of the 2nd harmonic measurement method was fundamentally flawed.

The student smiled and candidly admitted that everyone in his institution was indeed aware of this fact. However, he revealed that one of his institute's top bosses had risen to his position by promoting this interpretation of the 2nd harmonic measurement method, and consequently, no one within the institute dared to challenge it.

---

Should a professor of Physics know Physics?

The answer may seem obvious, but in today's academic landscape, it's not as straightforward as it should be.

During one conference, I had the opportunity to meet a very talented student and engage in conversation with his professor. To my surprise, it became evident from our discussion that the professor struggled with grasping some fundamental concepts in physics, mathematics, and software writing. Perplexed, I asked the student about this, and their response was shocking: "Yes, indeed, the professor faces difficulties even with basic physics, mathematics, and software writing."

This raised a crucial question: "How is it possible for someone like that to hold the position of a professor of physics?" The response I received was eye-opening: "You are naive and unaware of how academia operates nowadays."

The student explained that a professor's primary responsibility is to secure funding for their research group. There are many individuals in the group engaged in research, including PostDocs, PhD students, technicians, and a secretary.

Without a continuous flow of funding, the group will dissolve, and no one will be able to conduct the important research that the group is engaged in.

The main professor's role involves networking with influential figures to garner support, ensuring referees and editors endorse publications from the group, and influencing grant decisions for group members.

I then inquired, "How does he deliver lectures on physics topics to students and prepare his lecture courses?"

The response I received was enlightening: "At our university, postdocs primarily deliver lectures to students. Within our research group, we have a lecture course developed by former postdocs, which is continuously refined and enhanced across generations of postdocs. On rare occasions when the professor must deliver a lecture, members of the group prepare both the slides and text, and the professor simply reads through them."

Therefore, the primary responsibility of any professor is to ensure a constant flow of grants into the group, as it is of critical importance to the group's success.

This reality sheds light on the evolving dynamics within academia, where administrative and networking responsibilities sometimes overshadow the traditional role of imparting in-depth subject knowledge to students.

 

---

Should persons who publish 30 or more scientific papers per year, 90% of which they did not read and none of which they understand, face severe consequences for mocking science?

The answer seemed clear to me at first, but after speaking with several students, it became less straightforward.

Their response was eye-opening: "You are naive and unaware of how academia operates nowadays." Indeed, it's common for professors or top academics to publish a large number of papers without fully grasping their scientific content. Another scenario is when a theoretician publishes numerous papers filled with formulas but lacking meaningful content, solely to secure a promotion.

The students elaborated that a professor's primary responsibility is securing funding for their research group rather than being deeply involved in the science or publishing scientific papers. In a research group, there are numerous individuals capable of handling those tasks. The professor's main role is to ensure financial support for the group, without which no one in the group could publish papers.

For this purpose, the professor's primary tasks include networking with influential figures to garner support, ensuring referees and editors endorse publications from the group, and influencing grant decisions for group members. Given the importance of this task, the professor has the right to be one of co-authors of a scientific paper even if the professor does not fully understand its details.

 

---

Professor of Physics versus Artificial Intelligence (AI) versus Nature

Professor of Physics versus Artificial Intelligence (AI):

It happened several times while my manuscripts were being reviewed for a prestigious scientific journal that I became suspicious that one of the three reviewers of this journal had generated his/her report using AI. My suspicion arose for the following reasons.

The reviewer asked a suspiciously large number of questions, but all were only remotely related to the manuscript and did not fully correlate with its content. It seemed as if the reviewer understood the meaning of each word but struggled to comprehend the meanings of sentences and even more so the paragraphs. There was no clear connection between the whole text and the reviewer's questions. For instance, my co-author was furious because one of the initial questions asked why the studied nanomagnets were too thick, while one of the final questions asked why the nanomagnets were too thin. These questions were entirely contradictory. Moreover, it was unclear why the thickness of the nanomagnets was so important to the reviewer. There are many reasons why nanomagnets should be of a particular thickness, but they are unrelated to the topic of our study, which focused on a new measurement method of spin polarization. It's akin to asking about the reasons why grass is green when those reasons have nothing to do with the measured spin polarization.

To verify my suspicions, I asked ChatGPT (free version, 2024.02) to generate questions for my manuscript. All the questions generated by ChatGPT were much more relevant, scientific, and insightful than those from the reviewer. Therefore, the reviewer must be a real person.However, even though this reviewer may hold a title like Honored Professor or Top Academic, judging by his/her questions, the reviewer is not truly a scientific person. The reviewer could be a child, a lawyer, or a science-fiction writer. In terms of the level of scientific understanding, the reviewer does not even match the capabilities of AI.

A Professor versus Nature:

It

 

 

---

Current Relationship Between Scientists and Bureaucrats: Mutual Deception: I am cheating you, you are cheating me.

("Scientists" Cheating Bureaucrats): A Clean Room as a Disneyland Attraction

I've observed a recurring situation where bureaucrats from a ministry visit a scientific lab to verify how their allocated funds are being used to create new technologies. To secure more funding, scientists often put on a show to deceive these bureaucrats.

For example, the bureaucrats are dressed in cleanroom wear, complete with masks and protective goggles, making them look almost like aliens. They are then invited inside the cleanroom, which is filled with impressive-looking fabrication machines and scientific apparatus. Even though the bureaucrats have no idea about the function or importance of any machine, the cleanroom environment and the cleanroom attire create a captivating atmosphere that persuades them to allocate more funds.

During the visit, seats and a screen are set up in the cleanroom for presentations. The scientific level of these presentations is usually simplified to that of kindergarten students, with animated explanations of spins and electrons jumping and flying. In the presentation, many unrealistic promises are made, with no intention of being kept, about how the additional funds will revolutionize existing technologies, automate everything with robots, and enable starships to fly to other galaxies. The main message is: "Give us more money."

After the show, the scientists often boast about how well they deceived the "stupid" bureaucrats and how much additional funding they secured.

I believe this kind of deception is unfair. The bureaucrats are professionals in their own challenging jobs, managing fisheries, logistics, factory production, and more. These are not simple tasks. Scientists should provide the best advice, help, and opinions to these bureaucrats, not deceive them. Such cheating only exacerbates the current mistrust between science and society.

A Clean Room as a Disneyland Attraction for Bureaucrats
When bureaucrats from a ministry are visiting a scientific Lab., scientists are creating some kind of a cleanroom show in order to fool them and to get some more money from them.

 

(Bureaucrats Cheating Scientists): Bureaucrat thinking: I watched all 6 episodes of "Star Wars", which made me the best expert in science and technology. I do not need those scientists anymore.

For a long time, bureaucrats have recognized that there is a significant flow of money between the government and scientists, and they see this money as easy to obtain. To bureaucrats, scientists appear to be among the least clever people. Scientists spend their days and nights, weekdays, weekends, and vacations working tirelessly in cleanrooms, at computers, and in experimental labs to advance technology and science. From a bureaucrat's perspective, this is a foolish endeavor. Instead of wasting time to research, they believe scientists should be focusing on how to secure more funding for themselves.

Initially, bureaucrats positioned themselves as intermediaries, or "windows," between the government and scientists, directing the flow of money into two streams: one for their own use and another for the scientists. To manage this, they created various scientific grants and established a complex management and reporting system for scientists.

However, over time, bureaucrats realized that the only requirement for receiving government funds was submitting reports to their fellow bureaucrats. For these reports, they didn't need the involvement of scientists. The entire scientific and technological education of their peers, who evaluated the reports, was often based solely on "Star Wars" movies. As a result, scientific reports from actual researchers didn't align with the expectations of these evaluating bureaucrats. Scientists are bound by the fundamental laws of physics, can't promise unrealistic technologies, and can't make promises they don't intend to keep.

In contrast, one bureaucrat can easily please another. They don't care about the laws of physics or the promises made. Therefore, scientific presentations from bureaucrats, filled with unfeasible promises and lacking scientific rigor, are often enjoyable for other bureaucrats but unbearable for scientists. Conversely, genuine scientific presentations by scientists are often intolerable for bureaucrats to sit through.

Ultimately, the bureaucrats concluded, "Why share the research funds with scientists when we can utilize all of it for ourselves? We don't actually need the scientists anymore."

---

 

Comparison of professors and top academics form Present and from 90's and earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

My experience with professors in the 80s:

When I was a student at Kiev University in the mid-80s, most of the professors were regarded by all students as superhumans, almost god-like, due to their exceptional and unbelievable skills. They excelled not only in the subjects they taught but also in general science and everyday life. I was particularly impressed when, during a camping trip, one professor was able to calculate an extremely difficult integral using only a wooden stick and sand.

Their skills often surpassed those of average engineers in their respective fields. These professors possessed exceptional abilities not only in science-related areas like mathematics, physics, chemistry, and software but also in practical tasks such as mechanics, electrical appliances, cooking, and car repair. I remember being amazed when a professor visited a mechanical shop and made a rather complicated device using drilling, lathe, and milling machines, outperforming even a skilled professional mechanic.

 

Minimum skill level to become a scientist.

 

 

 

Low requirements for defending PhD degree.

 

 

Respect in society

 

"Baby" professors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

---

---

Why does Einstein have a Nobel Prize, but I don't? Even though my IQ and citation indexes are 100 times higher than Einstein's?

 

I've heard this question several times from different professors and academics, half-jokingly and half-seriously: "Why does Einstein have a Nobel Prize, but I don't? Even though my IQ and citation indexes are 100 times higher than Einstein's?"

When I hear this, I always ask: "It's well known what Einstein did. Even now, his discoveries govern physics. But what kind of discovery did you make?"

The answer is always similar: "My discoveries are too complex for you to understand."

My response is invariably: "Try me."

Then, the person starts a very vague, general, and non-specific explanation like: "I did some research in nanotubes, or in spintronics, or in optics. I have studied some details of some details and so on."

In short, the persons cannot name any of their discoveries or significant research results. Despite having 1,000 published papers and impressive IQ and citation indexes, they are unable to explain any concrete achievements. Of course, they have many "important connections," they socialize with "influential people", and they do many "favors." This is what results in all their "research" achievements.

 

---

 

peer review

Peer review and citation indexes have become tools for bureaucrats to control and manipulate scientists, planting the seeds of corruption in science.

 

Does peer review help to prevent fake or fraudulent publications or improve the quality of scientific papers?

Absolutely not. In my experience, the number of fake or fraudulent publications hasn't decreased—in fact, it may have even increased—since the adoption of strict peer-review processes. Instead, bureaucrats and research communities have gained powerful tools to censor and control scientists by controlling the reviewing process and introduction of citation indexes.

Does increasing the number of reviewers improve the quality of a scientific paper?

Absolutely not. Increasing the number of reviewers often stifles genuine scientific discussion, leading to papers that cater more to the reviewers' preferences than to advancing science. This results in publications with minimal scientific content and reduced discourse, all aimed at avoiding any challenging questions from reviewers.

Any new idea, thought, or scientific result is expected to generate questions and curiosity from reviewers, which often leads to the rejection of the paper.

Does a publication in a high-impact journal ensure the scientific quality of the paper?

Often not. The high-impact factor of a scientific journal is frequently the result of a coordinated effort by a research community (see below) and their numerous publications in associated Assistant Journals (see below). As a result, members of these communities are the primary contributors to such journals. A small number of outsiders are also permitted to publish, but their papers are extremely reviewer- oriented meaning they are often heavily tailored to appease and trick reviewers and avoid rejection, rather than focusing on genuine scientific advancement.

( a good reviewer)Does the review process by good and genius reviewers improve scientific publications?

( a good reviewer)You seem to imply that all reviewers are corrupt and uninterested in science. Is the research community really that bad?

In my experience, the majority of reviewers who have evaluated my submitted papers are kind, uncorrupted, and genuinely interested in science. Only a few have raised suspicions. However, even when dealing with insightful, good and genius reviewers, the process can be challenging.

In my personal opinion, even the most skilled and intelligent reviewers do not necessarily improve a scientific paper. Science, much like art, is highly subjective, and a scientific paper is akin to a painting. Imagine if an "expert" came to your painting and insisted, "These leaves should be a darker green, or else your painting is ruined," while another "expert" argued, "No, the leaves should be a lighter green, or your painting will be destroyed." Would this review process actually improve your painting?

In some rare instances, a reviewer might point out a genuine mistake, which can be helpful. Still I do not think it is a job for a reviewer. It should be done in a different way.

It's important for authors to have the opportunity to correct potential errors and typos even after the paper has been published.

The creative and innovative aspects of science should be respected and not overly constrained by the subjective opinions of reviewers.

 

reviewer- oriented scientific papers

 

Confusing dream of young researchers:

I personally know several young and talented researchers who set their primary career goal to publish a paper in a prestigious, high-citation journal, mistakenly believing that this achievement would elevate their research skills and position to a higher level. Being exceptionally talented, they succeeded in this endeavor. However, after publishing in such journals, they decided to leave science for careers in business or finance.

The reason for their departure is that they became disillusioned with the corruption they encountered in the process of achieving such publications. As highly talented individuals, they sought environments where their abilities could truly shine, and they realized that the corrupted landscape of science was not the place for that. They have since found challenges and opportunities to apply their talents in the business and financial sectors. While they have been successful in these new fields, they continue to miss the world of science.

 

How to distinguish a reviewer- oriented paper from a science- oriented paper?

A

Assistant Scientific Journals

Assistant Journals are scientific journals that typically have very low citation indexes. Their primary purpose is to boost the citation indexes of higher-impact journals. Usually, a research community controls one high-citation-index journal along with several low-citation-index Assistant Journals. These Assistant Journals publish a large volume of low-quality, quasi-scientific papers, with the main goal of increasing citations for the high-impact journal managed by the same research community. The actual content of the papers in these Assistant Journals is irrelevant; what matters is ensuring the correct citations. The research community provides "friendly" editors and reviewers to facilitate this process.

 

Research Community

The Research Community is an informal network of "researchers" who collaborate to secure access to government funding, maintain high citation indexes for group members, and promote each other to prestigious research positions. Within this group, some members serve as editors for journals, others provide "friendly" reviews for papers authored by fellow members, and some sit on government research funding boards. Typically, the Research Community controls at least one high-impact journal along with several low-impact Assistant Journals that serve to bolster the citation metrics of the primary journal.

 

 

on support of peer review

 

 

---

Influence of Fake, Hype-Driven, and Corrupt Research on Human Progress

The most concerning consequence of fake, hype and corrupt research isn’t just that it facilitates easy theft of government funds—it’s that it actively hinders the progress of humanity.

I’ve often heard people dismiss this issue, saying, "Why worry about a group of individuals who call themselves scientists and academics but are as far from genuine science as possible? Let them siphon money from the government—the government is rich and has enough for everyone. Let them publish thousands of meaningless papers containing only scientific garbage. Just ignore their work, do not read those papers and focus on producing good science yourself."

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Just as corruption in society erodes social trust and integrity, corruption in science destroys the science and slows progress of the Human race.

Scientific Numbers & Indexes & Reports are larger and larger, but the scientific progress is slower and slower.

citation from @MarkWaldicott

In the mid 1960's I heard my favorite science joke... "If you make a pile out of copies of published physics papers eventually the rate of growth of the pile will exceed the speed of light. This however is not a problem as no information is conveyed."

 

---

 

 

 

I am strongly against a fake and "highlight" research