News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat by pvaldes on Monday September 05, 2022 @12:00PM (#32725796)
If we assign grant points to people that flood the precious journal space with fake articles claiming over-hyped promises, maybe we should give grant points also to the people able to spot the lies on those kind of articles.

After all they are serving to the advance of science also (and saving thousands of expensive hours of research to other). If you want to promote it, just create incentives.

Otherwise, If the cheater wins in a 95% of the times and the verifier does not have anything to gain (and will damage their own research by the time invested on this) after a while only cheaters remain [1]. At middle term, all research tend towards a sort of expensive shamanism in well illuminated white rooms.

[1] (And of course the non cheaters will be actively blocked from this point).

Re:'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat by pvaldes on Monday September 05, 2022 @12:20PM (#32726043)
My proposal would be: If there was a clear, proven, intention of cheating and not just an error (we all commit stupid errors sometimes), the letter or communication of the people disclosing it will receive the same citation rank that the fake article had accumulated until that date. Good for the journals, good for the research.
Re:'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat by MPSimmons on Monday September 05, 2022 @12:32PM (#32726192)
Like a bug bounty for academic publications?
Re:'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat by pvaldes on Monday September 05, 2022 @12:44PM (#32726316)
Yes, something like that