Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 1099 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#fraud#should#caught#more#elsevier#paper#makes#kind#terrible#using

Discussion (54 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

beambot•about 1 hour ago
Sayre's Law: Academic Politics Are So Vicious Because the Stakes Are So Small

Maybe universities, tenure committees, and funding sources should stop measuring academics by vanity metrics such as H-Index and publication counts. And don't get me started on the tendency toward "minimum publishable units."

That said, abusing power as an editor deserves a special place in hell...

denverllc•20 minutes ago
The stakes are pretty large now. You are judged on the number of publications, positions, citations, etc.

It’s not even about philosophical disagreement as much as future career

azan_•about 1 hour ago
How should they be judged then? Any metric can be gamed. And if it will be kind of qualitative assessment then politics will be 10000x more important. The system is clearly broken but I’m not sure if alternative is not even worse.
shae•about 3 hours ago
After decades of dealing with Elsevier, Springer-Verlag and the rest; I hope they all go out of business.
kspacewalk2•about 2 hours ago
The funny thing is, if the guy wasn't quite so greedy with this racket, probably no one would notice. Surely if the number of your publications and citations shoots up exponentially and surpasses those of much more well-known scientists, folks are bound to ask questions. I wonder if this got out of control or whether he really did think it's a good idea to collude his way to such prominence.
themafia•4 minutes ago
> probably no one would notice.

It probably wouldn't have risen to this level. People always notice but don't always react in ways you can measure.

tedggh•about 1 hour ago
This is typical behavior from psychopaths when they get away with the crime for so long, they believe they are untouchable and start becoming sloppy and get caught.
amarcheschi•about 3 hours ago
It'd be nice to check whether some llms still have "memory" of the paper she has deleted
recursive•20 minutes ago
That's the neat part. You can never know for sure.
mlmonkey•about 3 hours ago
It will be interesting to see how Goodell's citations drop going forward.
cess11•about 1 hour ago
Elsevier has a history of 'promoting' successful millers to more or other journals, so they can 'drive growth', as it's sometimes put in IT, there as well.

https://forbetterscience.com/2023/10/24/elsevier-choses-pape...

This type of corporation is nasty and should not be allowed to exist, but thanks to people like the Maxwell clan, they do. For now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnmFTvlrsOo

blizdiddy•about 3 hours ago
Makes sense. Economics isn’t science, it’s numerology that justifies exploiting workers.
azan_•about 1 hour ago
Your comment is funny because it’s completely opposite - economics has generally great track record and fraudulent results typically do not survive for long. Citation cartels and paper mills exist in all disciplines.
greenchair•about 1 hour ago
the economists have a terrible record which is why public opinion of them is low. I'd guess equal weight to meterologists forecasting.
LeifCarrotson•about 1 hour ago
Do meteorologists have a terrible record?

I've literally got the NWS hourly forecast and radar open in the next tab over to watch when and where the rain will be clear as I plan my route home...

cess11•about 1 hour ago
Does it, really? There haven't been any problematic issues since economists and their lore became a dominant influence over politics that could be attributed to this influence?
Pay08•33 minutes ago
Let me guess, another "capitalism bad" tirade?
bpt3•about 3 hours ago
3 down, thousands to go.

This will continue until Elsevier and their 3 or 4 peers are removed from the academic publishing process entirely.

ArbriT•about 3 hours ago
Is it just me or this makes me feel less guilty for using libgen all these years
munk-a•about 3 hours ago
Information for non-commercial purposes should be free for general social enrichment. Information for commercial purposes should have some path towards monetization but the one we've got right now is clearly a terrible fit.

For the future, though, usually if you just email one of the paper author's with even a hint of interest you'll get the full paper and often a neat discussion about how your specific interest relates to the paper. I think people assume researchers get hounded by fans like celebrities but they're usually folks that love to talk about their topics of interest.

embedding-shape•about 3 hours ago
I don't know anyone who should be feeling guilty from using libgen in the first place.
azan_•about 1 hour ago
I feel guilty for publishing in elsevier and paying for their “services”. By all means using scihub and libgen is morally superior position.
ChrisMarshallNY•about 4 hours ago
I am not arguing against the facts expressed in the piece. This is not an area in which I have any expertise.

However, I am a bit uncomfortable with the pithy language used. It's possible (likely, even), that the fired editors deserve the pithiness, but it's still a bit weird to read that kind of prose, in a scientific context.

mklyachman•about 4 hours ago
This is an investigative substack, not a piece of academic literature. God forbid the author home some (admittedly, strong) opinions and speaks negatively about fraudsters.
JMKH42•about 4 hours ago
I am amazed that every time evil is exposed there are people who have to jump in and wonder "Are we being a bit too mean to the evil though?"

Makes me wonder if these people are just evil themselves.

mananaysiempre•about 4 hours ago
There are few things I’m afraid of more than a man that thinks himself righteous, because there is very little that such a man would be unwilling to do.

So it makes sense to be cautious when I find myself feeling like one, or being pulled along by the emotions of another who does.

idle_zealot•about 3 hours ago
You're not wrong about the danger posed, but take a step back and consider who this attitude helps. The greatest beneficiaries of a culture in which good faith and civility are unconditionally granted for fear of misguided righteous anger is a paradise for fraudsters and bad faith actors. I think we're seeing that world now.
blueflow•about 2 hours ago
It comes from having the sort of parents whose behavior warrants this kind of suspicions.
pessimizer•about 3 hours ago
I've decided that it's a weird reversed counterpart to "impostor syndrome" (when you secretly think you're not that good while trying your best to maintain a professional standard.)

I think there's this sort of "moral impostor syndrome" where people who carefully work to present an image of themselves as good people are totally willing to participate in fraud or theft at any level - the only consideration is whether they will be caught, because they value the appearance of being good people (and of course, that appearance gives them more opportunities to commit fraud and theft safely.) If they want to do something and there's no way they'll be caught, they'll do it 100% of the time.

This is the only way I can understand people who refer to fraud as a "mistake." They see other people caught in a fraud that they can imagine that they themselves might have done, because they also wouldn't have thought that they would have ever been caught. The "mistake" was evaluating the chances of the success of a fraud badly.

The fact that they relate to these people also makes them want to give them a second chance, just as they would want to be able to recover their careers if any of their past (or future) frauds had become "mistakes."

"There but for the grace of God go I."

It's terrible. It incentivizes evil. The desperation to give people a second chance to expiate one's own secret sins by proxy creates a system where people only initially draw attention through frauds, then get caught, then get second chances. Meanwhile, people who didn't participate in fraud never get noticed. It's a perverse incentive that filters for trash. Do anything to get your name out there, then the fact that your name is out there gets you into the conversation.

Meanwhile, somebody is scolding you for being upset about it: "You're just perfect I guess. Never made a mistake." Fraud is not a mistake. You do it on purpose.

fancyfredbot•about 1 hour ago
I thought the caption "looking normal" was possibly a bit unnecessary.

Then again, I also found it rather funny. I suspect this is because I am a bad person.

_will_•about 3 hours ago
Maybe I'm just naive or dense, but I'm not seeing language I'd be concerned about in the article? Help me get calibrated, is there something in particular that bothers you? or just a general vibe?
ChrisMarshallNY•about 3 hours ago
Well...the reactions were ... enlightening

I certainly apologize for hurting feelings. That was not my intent.

I've just learned (the hard way, of course, because how else do we learn?), that using this kind of terminology, even though we may be feeling quite pithy, gives ammo to those that wish to discount us.

This goes double, in my experience, for any context that prizes objectivity and articulate discussion.