The Shocking Revelation: 11,000 "Peer-Reviewed" Papers Retracted – What This Means for Trusting Science

All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Recently, a headline caught my attention and struck me deeply:

“Trust The "Science"...That Just Retracted 11,000 "Peer-Reviewed" Papers”

The online article begins with a stark reminder that blind trust in science might not always be wise. According to the article, the 217-year-old Wiley science publisher had "peer-reviewed" over 11,000 papers that were later found to be fraudulent. These papers were described as "naked gobbledygook sandwiches."

Naked gobbledygook sandwiches

This revelation underscores a troubling reality: even in the realm of science, errors and deceit can infiltrate. This notion hit home for me just yesterday. As a member of the Editorial Board for a nascent quantum physics academic journal, I was asked to review a paper that had already received two positive reviews. Upon examining the paper and its references, I felt compelled to share my concerns with the Editor-in-Chief. Below is my carefully crafted response:

Dear Editor,

I harbor suspicions that this paper, along with a series of treatises by this author, is based on a grave error that originated in Reference [17]. Upon scrutinizing the citations of Reference [17], I discovered eleven citations, ten of which are self-citations, with one citation in a thesis by a pupil of the author.

I will provide a concise description of what I believe to be the error, which may assist the next reviewer in their evaluation. Would you agree to this?

Additionally, should my assessment prove accurate, we face an ethical dilemma. If an entire series of papers is based on a fallacy and we are aware of it, is it right to remain silent? We might consider writing a paper to highlight this error. However, before proceeding, I want to ensure my judgment is sound. I will endeavor to prepare and send a PDF document with the relevant formulas today.

With the utmost respect and warmest regards,

Arkadiusz

Having penned this initial response, I spent the rest of the day and this morning creating a detailed follow-up:

Dear Editor,

Attached is my brief and quickly written note. There may be some spelling errors, but I hope it helps. I would appreciate an independent opinion on the subject.

Best regards,

Arkadiusz

Here is my "short note":

Throughout this process, one thought persistently lingered in my mind:

“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”

By sharing this experience, I hope to underscore the importance of vigilance and integrity in scientific endeavors. Let us remain steadfast in our pursuit of truth, even when it means questioning the very foundations upon which we stand.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

“There is good and there is evil and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.” [The Law of Three]

P.S. 25-07-24 18:59 Very interesting paper:

Projective representation of the Galilei group for classical and quantum-classical systems

A. D. Bermúdez Manjarres

February 24, 2023