publish fake science for a fee

[aerohead]

This was easy to find:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ence-for-a-fee

[freebeard]

Did you download the summary? www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.2013.342.6154.342_60

Story is worthless without a list of the scofflaws.

[oil pan 4]

I though everyone knew about these, but it's a good reminder and an eye opener for the uninitiated.
There's also funding bias.
Also npr: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...t-blame-at-fat

More recently another article I found showed every study funded by the sugar industry between 1999 and 2016 (over 100) found results favorable to the sugar industry. Funding bias. So it's not just flyby night pay to play "(fake) science news".
The bottom line is its not just the sugar industry.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Did you download the summary? www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.2013.342.6154.342_60

Story is worthless without a list of the scofflaws.

Here's a link to librarian Beall's list
https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

[freebeard]

That is actionable intelligence. Apparently he downed the list in 2017 for purposes of self-preservation.

Welcome to Predatory Journals
Jan 24, 2017

Jeffrey Beall scrubbed his blog and lists of predatory journals and publishers last week after years of running ScholarlyOA. This raised concerns around the Internet from scholars about being able to assess the many calls for papers and requests received from legitimate-sounding, but questionable journals. Beall apparently took down his list of predatory journals in order to avoid continued harassment and threats.

Continue reading...

https://predatoryjournals.com/

I shall compare a certain list of new papers against it [for a day or two].

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

So many mainstream media outlets, most likely the overwhelming majority of them, are doing it anyway. Whichever pays more, gets a coverage reflecting more its interests than a counterpoint to it.

[freebeard]

No correlation to Beall's list in today's featured links.

Nonsense about “Unprecedented” Warming: https://news.arizona.edu/story/globa...-unprecedented...
Solar Forcing Thermosphere Anomaly: https://uaf.edu/news/students-resear...heric-wind.php...
Starspots and Superflares: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.05452.pdf
Eggshell Planets: https://source.wustl.edu/2021/11/trea...

[aerohead]

yeppers. it all looked perfectly legit.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

So many mainstream media outlets, most likely the overwhelming majority of them, are doing it anyway. Whichever pays more, gets a coverage reflecting more its interests than a counterpoint to it.

Aside for what I can glean twice a week on the internet, I'm stuck with commercial broadcasting. It's all about the commercials. Any token, minimum content for obligatory, mandatory, FCC-required educational material, is so dumbed down, as to be a complete insult to the senses.
PBS and NPR would be the sole exceptions.

[MeteorGray]

Virtually all news sources have wrecked their reputations on the twin hazards of money and politics.

I use most "news" sources as a reverse barometer nowadays: the opposite of what they say is more likely to be true. This is because they either twist the data to fit their agenda, or ignore the data that go against it.

Therefore, I terminated all print media years ago. Even though I still have TV and the Internet which have sources fully as guilty, I'm not paying extra for their news content and thus don't feel so much like a fool to have it and yet ignore it.

Unfortunately, even supposedly objective "science" sources nowadays have proven to do the same: either twist the facts to fit the spiel, or fail to report all of the facts for the same effect. The current virus from China is an example.