/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16183122
I hate them so much.

Science journals refuse to investigate evidence of fraud in published articles

https://www.science.org/content/article/whistleblowers-flagged-300-scientific-papers-for-retraction-many-journals-ghosted-them

>Whistleblowers flagged 300 scientific papers for retraction. Journals ghosted them
>Saga highlights how slow, opaque action by publishers threatens the integrity of the research literature

>>15341362

>>12670294
I'm not opposed to the information they are stating, such as that masks are useful, and viral diseases can be prevented through a decrease in social and physical contact, what I am against is the blatant oversimplification of issues when related to scientific understanding, while still speaking of "searching for reliable sources" etc. People who "communicate" science to the general public are the ones who cause misinformation to spread. In an environment were everything is dumbed down, there are bound to be some people who question the information they are given. Furthermore, the people morally posturing over "conspiracy theorists", the average viewer of science communication channel has no say in this either. What is occuring is a trend of people saying "You're wrong, I heard it from my favorite science communicator", no papers, no articles, no evidence, no research. In practice, people are becoming vulnerable to thinking they are in the right as long as the person "communicating" something to them says it. People should, if they can't fully comprehend the topics discussed, rely more on experts, however they are in no way entitled to criticize those who receive their information in the same mechanism, however only different politically.