Yea, this is exactly my point. Not that white people using the scientific method are perfect but something culturally about asians (except the Japanese) is that they try to monkey hack the system and just create a bunch of fake shit to get their citation count up.
If you're an editor at a journal, and 5% of the papers from a Chinese university have to be retracted, I wouldn't waste the time of the peer reviewers in accepting it in the first place. It's like a sort of p hacking p.05 random chance that you're going to get something fake.
Japanese are exactly the same. They just passed the stage "hey, orientals, make me cheapest crap possible" in area of consumer goods.
If you're an editor at a journal, and 5% of the papers from a Chinese university have to be retracted,
Problem is that same amount, if not even more papers from Europe/USA have to be retracted, but that could have consequences for the editor. :) They just could not retract a paper paid by BigPharma or huge government grants that is used as a core reasom for huge profits or gov. spending/actions.
Most scientific journals are businesses under West jurisdiction. Chineese or Indians couldn't harm them financially or legally, but Western elites could.
State of Western Academia (really including Russian one, that is organized same as Western one with minor differences) is nicely described in one of last Sabine Hossenfelder's rant on YT - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg. (Interesting, does she spread same thing on climatehoax and coronahoax "science", or continue to be a hypocrite ?)
I used to be in academia, you don't have to sell me on the state of academia.
That said, I don't think you're reading the chart quite correctly. Lots of papers get retracted, but of institutions, 5% from this one get retracted. All western colleges probably have more by pure numbers, but this is akin to the per capita problem.
I used to be in academia, you don't have to sell me on the state of academia.
Cheers, so we know how it works. :(
That said, I don't think you're reading the chart quite correctly.
Chart is biased.
My point is that western institutilons have official retraction rate lower than 5%, only because of political/finacial reasons, not because of better papers quality. My second point is that this official retraction rate is a huge underestimation of what have to be retracted in normal system.
Yea, this is exactly my point. Not that white people using the scientific method are perfect but something culturally about asians (except the Japanese) is that they try to monkey hack the system and just create a bunch of fake shit to get their citation count up.
If you're an editor at a journal, and 5% of the papers from a Chinese university have to be retracted, I wouldn't waste the time of the peer reviewers in accepting it in the first place. It's like a sort of p hacking p.05 random chance that you're going to get something fake.
Japanese are exactly the same. They just passed the stage "hey, orientals, make me cheapest crap possible" in area of consumer goods.
Problem is that same amount, if not even more papers from Europe/USA have to be retracted, but that could have consequences for the editor. :) They just could not retract a paper paid by BigPharma or huge government grants that is used as a core reasom for huge profits or gov. spending/actions.
Most scientific journals are businesses under West jurisdiction. Chineese or Indians couldn't harm them financially or legally, but Western elites could.
State of Western Academia (really including Russian one, that is organized same as Western one with minor differences) is nicely described in one of last Sabine Hossenfelder's rant on YT - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg. (Interesting, does she spread same thing on climatehoax and coronahoax "science", or continue to be a hypocrite ?)
I used to be in academia, you don't have to sell me on the state of academia.
That said, I don't think you're reading the chart quite correctly. Lots of papers get retracted, but of institutions, 5% from this one get retracted. All western colleges probably have more by pure numbers, but this is akin to the per capita problem.
Cheers, so we know how it works. :(
Chart is biased.
My point is that western institutilons have official retraction rate lower than 5%, only because of political/finacial reasons, not because of better papers quality. My second point is that this official retraction rate is a huge underestimation of what have to be retracted in normal system.
Again, not quite correct, because Chinese have been caught in "paper mills"
Here's the story from the chart, which makes this clear: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00455-y