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]

The case of Grigori Perelman and When bad men combine, the good must associate

 Grigori Perelman, a Russian mathematician, born in 1966, was awarded the Fields Medal (a version of a Nobel Prize in mathematics),.in 2006. In 2010 he was awarded the million dollar Clay Millennium Prize.

He turned down both awards.

This was something that had never happened before, and made quite a stir in the mathematical community and in the media. Perelman did not talk a lot about the reasons for his refusals, but an article published in The New Yorker by Sylvie Nasar, who wrote also “A beautiful mind”, the biography of John Nash - reveals part of the mystery. In private interviews Grigori Perelman said: 

“It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens,” he said. “It is people like me who are isolated.” 

Then, when asked about his colleagues, mathematicians, who were fighting for priority, he added:

I can’t say I’m outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest.

“Almost of all them are conformists” – this observation made by Grigori Perelman, the iconoclast mathematician, applies not only to mathematics. It applies to all areas of Science, and not only Science. Edmund Burke, a 19-th century Irish statesman and philosopher wrote in his essay “Thought on the cause of the present discontent”:

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

The above is often rephrased as:

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

The point is, I think, that good men all too often are conformists – they just do nothing, since doing something would disturb their comfortable lives. That doing nothing helps evil to prevail, that doing nothing ruins the lives of other people – that thought does not occur to many of them. And, as far as I can see, scientists are no better here than the rest of society. In fact, because science is used as a means to power by politicians, it may actually be a more concentrated sample than the lay-public.

Grigori Perelman, disappointed with the pitiful behavior of the scientific community, withdrew from doing science completely. 

Science devoured again one of her most talented children.