That’s exactly the point. If you want to be a researcher right now you have to play their game. You have to publish papers even if you don’t have anything. So people publish bullshit, use chatGPT, force their name on papers they haven’t contributed and so on.
Meanwhile the science journals get paid by everyone and pay no one.
So people publish bullshit, use chatGPT, force their name on papers they haven’t contributed and so on.
Assuming that you pass the peer review, then nobody will reference your paper in other papers. It will become obvious that your research is not interesting or that you are just slapping your name on papers as a supervisor.
Lol, it shows you don’t know how things really work. New bullshit cites old bullshit, it’s all a game of pretending. You can check the statistics of fraudulent papers and that is just takes into account the most obvious ones.
A good example of this is the Amyloid Hypothesis for dementia. All the papers that “proved” this concept have been retracted, but after 8 years. Good work showed that looking at amyloid load in random brains showed no correlation close to 20 years ago, but amyloidists begat more amyloidists, until finally there was a drug that reduces amyloid by 30%. All it did was cause brain bleeds, deaths and no benefit, but the FDA approved it anyway. MDs will still explain how it really “should” work. It was all a cabal of US scientists who dominated all symposia, only inviting speakers who were in their cabal.
Meanwhile, genetic forms of neurodegeneration are highlighting defects in DNA damage repair. So, 25 years and billions wasted while there still are no treatments.
Of course I don’t know, while you are an accomplished scientist with tons of papers under his belt. All disagreements here ends with one genius saying lol I know better.
That’s exactly the point. If you want to be a researcher right now you have to play their game. You have to publish papers even if you don’t have anything. So people publish bullshit, use chatGPT, force their name on papers they haven’t contributed and so on.
Meanwhile the science journals get paid by everyone and pay no one.
Assuming that you pass the peer review, then nobody will reference your paper in other papers. It will become obvious that your research is not interesting or that you are just slapping your name on papers as a supervisor.
Lol, it shows you don’t know how things really work. New bullshit cites old bullshit, it’s all a game of pretending. You can check the statistics of fraudulent papers and that is just takes into account the most obvious ones.
A good example of this is the Amyloid Hypothesis for dementia. All the papers that “proved” this concept have been retracted, but after 8 years. Good work showed that looking at amyloid load in random brains showed no correlation close to 20 years ago, but amyloidists begat more amyloidists, until finally there was a drug that reduces amyloid by 30%. All it did was cause brain bleeds, deaths and no benefit, but the FDA approved it anyway. MDs will still explain how it really “should” work. It was all a cabal of US scientists who dominated all symposia, only inviting speakers who were in their cabal.
Meanwhile, genetic forms of neurodegeneration are highlighting defects in DNA damage repair. So, 25 years and billions wasted while there still are no treatments.
Of course I don’t know, while you are an accomplished scientist with tons of papers under his belt. All disagreements here ends with one genius saying lol I know better.
So you have no idea what a supervisor does.
I do and I bet you don’t since you draw conclusions based on nothing.