"A third of scientific papers may be fraudulent"

[Zardoz]

"Around a third of studies published in neuroscience journals, and about 24% in medical journals, are 'made up or plagiarized,' according to a new paper."

semafor.com/article/05/10/2...

[Farooqji]

I agree

[park_bear]

It is actually much worse in Parkinson's studies due to this:

healthunlocked.com/cure-par...

[WinnieThePoo in reply to park_bear]

I am a little confused. Your argument is that pre-treatment invalidates the research. I can see that would be so if the objective was to treat (dare we say cure) existing PD. But a huge percentage of the research focusses on slowing or preventing progression. If you can find something which protects neurons from harm if given prophylactically, then surely pre-treatment is a valid research technique

[park_bear in reply to WinnieThePoo]

People post such studies on this forum on a regular basis under the misapprehension that they constitute evidence that some substance will serve to mitigate actual Parkinson's. Oftentimes whether the study is a pre-treatment or post treatment study is buried deep in the full text and not easy to find.

Parkinson's prevention is a very important endeavor and is rightly focused on mitigating sources of toxicity known to cause Parkinson's. No one that I know of takes a particular supplement because it is thought to prevent Parkinson's.

[JMDean]

I want to begin by bemoaning the “Clickbait” nature of the title of those authors chose to give their article. However, If you dig into that article a little bit (which I do want to note has been published to one of the RXIV repositories, and has not been published in a peer review journal itself), the primary culprit is the rise of predatory journals. Aside from the occasional scandal, well-established journals with a high impact factor such the New England Journal of Medicine or Nature, for example, will not have that kind of fraud associated with it. Just like other sources of information on the Internet, where you get that information matters. If you get an article from a low quality, largely unheard of journal, there’s a high likelihood that the information may not be as well vetted. I just want to point this out so that the take away is not “researchers are lying to you”, but rather, “unsavory, predatory individuals under the guise of printing a journal”, are flooding the market with garbage. It’s not unlike the news environment these days (unfortunately)

[Despe in reply to JMDean]

May I ask if you are a PD patient?