On: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common

[danhau]

You’re not wrong, but it is everyone’s own responsibility to read the article and not just the headline.

[newswasboring → danhau]

So it's ok to lie in a portion of your work? Where do you draw the line? I draw it when someone starts communicating. Being wrong is ok, being deceitful isn't.

[caddemon → newswasboring]

Is this headline really deceitful though? Certainly the research is flawed, but the statement "[bad thing] is alarmingly common" is basically just a subjective statement that lets you know what position the author is going to argue.

[newswasboring → caddemon]

I will never understand why everyone bends over backwards to justify lazy af journalism. This a magazine which is supposed to do scientific journalism, yet it didn't even mention the points that readers in HN comments were able to figure out on a cursory look. Peer review isn't just the 3 reviewers who accept or reject something in a journal. It's everyone in the scientific community.

[ouid → danhau]

Responsibility is not conserved in a robust system. This is true and it is also the journal's responsibility to not mislead.

[Retric → danhau]

Expecting people to read every single article posted to HN is unrealistic.

Simply reading a title and on a topic you don’t find interesting then gives people the wrong impression.