There is much bigger conspiracy - why papers that was not replicated by independent researches are allowed to be cited in other papers.
As for your question about Asians - it is very simple. Since in the modern scientific world the level of researcher is measured by number of publications and citations, not by the quality of publication, they just do what will give them best resilts in that metrics. It's like Chineese manufacturer - they could do high-quality things, but if the customer(supply manager of supermarket network f.e.) want as cheap as possible goods, chineese will never refuse to fullfill the order. Same with the science. If they want more publications and citations - no problem, there will be more publications and citations.
So, if Academia is value scientists by number of publications in commercial scientific journals and citations by other publications author, not by the quality, importance, significance, etc of research, then there is absolutely no anything strange that Asians will do exactly what Academina "customer" wants.
Unless Academia drop that insane and corrupt tradition to value scientists by number of publications and citations - nothing will chenge ever.
Shittyness of publications from "best" western universities is exactly the same, it is just much simplier and consequenceless for western scientific peer-rewvewed journal to retract some unknown chineese dudes article, than to do it with similar shitty article from some "famous" western university with (((their))) names in it.
Add the politics and narratives here, and you get the current state of things in Academia.
Academia is rotten to the core. For a long time already.
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.
There is much bigger conspiracy - why papers that was not replicated by independent researches are allowed to be cited in other papers.
As for your question about Asians - it is very simple. Since in the modern scientific world the level of researcher is measured by number of publications and citations, not by the quality of publication, they just do what will give them best resilts in that metrics. It's like Chineese manufacturer - they could do high-quality things, but if the customer(supply manager of supermarket network f.e.) want as cheap as possible goods, chineese will never refuse to fullfill the order. Same with the science. If they want more publications and citations - no problem, there will be more publications and citations.
So, if Academia is value scientists by number of publications in commercial scientific journals and citations by other publications author, not by the quality, importance, significance, etc of research, then there is absolutely no anything strange that Asians will do exactly what Academina "customer" wants.
Unless Academia drop that insane and corrupt tradition to value scientists by number of publications and citations - nothing will chenge ever.
Shittyness of publications from "best" western universities is exactly the same, it is just much simplier and consequenceless for western scientific peer-rewvewed journal to retract some unknown chineese dudes article, than to do it with similar shitty article from some "famous" western university with (((their))) names in it.
Add the politics and narratives here, and you get the current state of things in Academia.
Academia is rotten to the core. For a long time already.
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.