Compulsion in writing and publication of article – a source of cheating with the Science and the People?

I would like to mention following:

1. paid journals are not counted for the academic promotion nowadays

2. a good researcher will not refer to paid journals

3. genuine workers will have sufficient knowledge to identify the real research work

So, I don"t think its a trap. One who involve in such things is wasting own money and time.

Best regards

Stephen I. Ternyik

Science has become an economic part of the assembly production line; it is all about quantification, i.e. science is also business (for profit). Over-specialization for academic careers reinforces this unhealthy trend of scientific labor; knowledge is scattered into so many sub-particles that the greater picture gets lost, e.g. a conclusive list of true statements in a field of study. The 'publish or perish' pressure creates an over-competition for academic jobs and solid fondations (standards) get lost, e.g. corporate university. Disruptive technologies will add to this confusion of what is false or right in science and research. The best future option is to extend modern knowledge by classical wisdom. Money and truth are different categories of life; you cannot buy truth, in no field of human study and action.

Dear Dr. Chitra Devi,

You perhaps do not know most of the famous and high rated journals will not publish your article at open access without proper (high) payment.

These may take lesser amount of money, or you are lucky enough, will not take money from you if you give them copyright.

Journal Publishing is purely a business in most of the cases.

Thanks.

Stephen I. Ternyik

Know medical professionals who paid $5000 (and more) for article promotion in respected publishing houses.

Dear Dr. Shibabrata,

Your remarks " the famous and high rated journals will not publish your article at open access without proper (high) payment" - it is correct to some extent.

I feel that the 'research' is not for all. First requirement is the 'passion' for research; a genuine researcher gets pleasure to generate new knowledge, new ideas and concepts or new products for the development of science and/or welfare of the society. The objective of publication is to communicate the new research findings among the scientific community.

The research under compulsion (or for any personal benefit) can not provide quality outputs (either quality science or technology). It's a matter of ethics also; any research needs some fund. The aim should be to deliver the useful (or new) information, otherwise simply the wastage of money, energy, and time. Of course, sincere efforts also may not be successful to achieve the objectives, but the honest endeavour should be appreciated.

Regards

Dear Dr. Batabyal,

I generally do not get your analysis as some answer of my questions perhaps due to difference in the branch of Science, but your analysis is always attractive to me.

Many people serving in some good posts also fails to follow ethics even for a very little benefit. That trend is increasing at a great speed, if I am not wrong.

Neeran Jasim

I agree with you dr . Shibabrata .. Many people serving in some good posts also fails to follow ethics even for a very little benefit. That trend is increasing at a great speed, if I am not wrong. ...

Dear Dr Shibabrata

I think the statement in your question

"In some service of teaching and research, promotion is dependent on publication of a minimum number of articles in some ‘categorized’ journals.

is not a question of publishing in open access journals, it about publication of standardless articles in paid journals (not peer reviewed one) just for academic promotion as its happening to some extent. Yes, open access journals requires money but only when it it peer reviewed for publication. So, manipulation of data or other unfair means you have mentioned in the question does not comes under open access (peer reviewed , indexed) journals. Also, you can publish in many closed access journals if the research work is proper and also eligible for promotion.

So, open access journal is not a criteria, but the quality of the work for promotiom.

With regards

Dear Dr. Chitra Devi,

The open access, peer reviewed journals depend on anti plagiarism software and some subject experts.

There are many people who know the techniques to bypass those screening.

Immoral people are having sufficient intelligence to perform this.

Thanks.

Dear Dr. Shibabrata,

Thanks for your appreciation. I try to see the interesting questions and record my views (subject and general matters) on RG; it's a pleasure to share and acquire knowledge.

I also adore your questions. Thanks and regards

Dear Dr Shibabrata

I agree, in fact salami publication is another important form but here we are discussing about the unfair publications in paid journals just only for academic promotion by cheating people and science.

Thanks for sharing question.

Also, I would like to add that there are many open access journals (not peer reviewed but indexed earlier) which are no more indexed by scopus, sci(e) due to certain reasons signifying that the concerned authority is taking possible steps to avoid unfair publications. So, let's hope for the best.

Regards

Dear Dibakar, "................................... the philosopher cannot be held responsible rather those teachers and editors are liable" - Yes, a good policy can be formulated. But the intelligent people always search some ways to bypass. The most important is proper 'mind set' - that sets the direction to be in the right path. Best wishes

In our time, in the era of Globalization, we can no longer ignore the total degradation of education throughout the world, which generates many abominable phenomena in science, of which you mention. Now we must clearly understand the following things:

1. For hospitals, we are not so much sick people (who need to be cured), but as usual clients.

2. For universities, we are not so much students (who want to gain knowledge), but as usual clients.

3. For magazines, we are not so much researchers (who want to publish their articles), but as usual clients.

The list can be continued further. Customers arise where demand generates supply. Using the word "client" now becomes much easier to explain the disgusting phenomena surrounding us. Many universities in the world have free places for students and paid places for clients, and the number of paid places is much higher. I know, for example, many cases where clients may not even go to university, but they can get a certificate of successful completion if they will pay the required amount of money. Any scientific article is a mixture of essence and visibility. Most of the articles are visibility as a science, many beautiful formulas with almost zero meaning. Such articles absolutely not pursue the goal of any contribution to science except as the goal of being recognized in the scientific community in order to get a career and improve financial problems.

And for this, all means are good. However, for the realization of such a goal, publications are needed, which the journal is called upon to provide.

And here we see the process of the contract of the Journal with the Client in one form or another. Yes, today Journals are in most cases a business and nothing but business. Yes, it is certainly a deception, to which everyone we has long been accustomed. There was a question: What are the possible ways out of this trap? To this question, I tried to give a detailed answer in the discussion

https://www.researchgate.net/post/On_what_conditions_can_one_appeal_against_an_unjust_rejection_of_his_her_article

I want to quote only one fragment as my proposals:

1. All papers are sent to a Single Database without any review. These papers are accessible to everyone for reading in the mode of open and free access.

2. For the right to publish a paper in his journal, a contest is announced between the journals. Thus, it is not the scientist who will be interested in publishing his paper in the journal, but quite the contrary, the jornal will be interested to publish the paper. The publication right will be won by the journal that will provide the maximum rewards to the researcher for the publication of his paper, after which the jornal acquires all rights to this paper for its further distribution. In this situation, the jornal will cherish its reputation and will not allow the publication of an paper with questionable scientific value. That is, the situation becomes this: NOT I AS A RESEARCHER IS INTERESTED TO PUBLISH MY PAPER, AND YOU AS A JOURNAL IS INTERESTED IN ME, AS PUBLICATION OF THE PAPER MAY PROVIDE YOU INCOME.

3. Before the publication of the paper in the journal, any researcher, student, graduate student, professor will be able to send your feedback, which will be included in the competition between the jornals. This will allow more objective assessment of the scientific contribution of the paper.

Kulvir Singh

Dear Fedulov

I agree with your opinion.The trends and attitudes are changing in educational societies.However Pattanayak has rightly expressed his concern and it is really worrysome for scientific societies.

Dear Colleagues,

using this opportunity, I would like to get your opinion about the unit of Honesty, Decency and Nobility in Science. I just want to discuss this issue as if on the sidelines, since the moment has come when this unit is clearly not enough for all of us now. I propose to introduce such a unit as Perelman as a sign of great respect for Grigory Perelman, who by his example admired and fascinated all of us in this world with his completely unselfish service to Science as unattainable example of Honesty, Decency and Nobility. I propose also to enter a millionth of this unit as Micro Perelman, that is, 1 Perelman = 1,000,000MicroPerelman. For example, there is such a unit of Bitcoin as BTC = 1,000,000satoshi. Perhaps by analogy, it is possible to introduce Perelman as P = 1,000,000mP, where mP is the millionth part of P. Your opinions.

Isam Issa Omran

I agree with you that the process of cheating in the preparation of articles has spread in many developing countries, especially for many reasons related to regulatory, administrative, financial and other matters, but all of them are not morally justified. In general, this fraud can not continue, inevitably will be revealed later.

Oyedemi Oyekola

Fraudulent practices begin with University Management, so they encourage the art. Where are the "Chancellors of Vices" when all these vices are going on? Universities these days are center of deception and wicked acts!

Students can spend 4 years without any specific skill to take out of the system because they are taught by unskilled and poorly trained academic staff. Technologists are now teaching the undergraduates without prerequisites academic qualifications. Postgraduate program in most science disciplines are nothing but a sham!

The elderly "Professors" are worst off in the ongoing sharp practices in the Universities system. Majority of them got to the top by the same crook method. They cheated all through to the top! They produce PhD students who are more smarter than them. Majority of these crooks PhD holders have no meaningful field of science research. They are generalists and know all predatory journals on Earth. Worst still, they are arrogant and rude!

The current trend is that, you will see a long list of co-authors in so called "journal article" with co-authors having no "atom" of knowledge in the subject matter. In some Universities, technologists have been converted to academics even without going to University to study.

The entire system is a big time fraud!

"How do universities that can hardly run undergraduate practicals engage in research? So, we have a vast number of lecturers who are products of non-empiricism who are reproducing themselves through no fault of theirs but what the system has made of them" ..... Professor Biodun Jeyifo

"Things are so seemingly hopelessly skewed that even new, private universities that lack the basic human and infrastructural necessities for high school instruction are awarding Ph D’s, the ultimate research degree in the modern university" ...... Professor Biodun Jeyifo

"What do we do, concretely, about all the worthless Ph D’s that have been produced and are still being produced in our universities? And the “professors” who produced and are still producing them, what do we do about them? That is the question and anyone who claims that she or he has a simple and realistic solution to the question is self-deceived"... ..... Professor Abiodun Jeyifo

...... it is the practice of creating more and more universities with absolutely minimal human and financial capital investments in them, turning the great majority of them into no more than glorified high school".......

The great swindle, the extremely unconscionable scam is to have convinced parents, students and apparently the whole country that “universities” without the most elementary facilities for higher learning are universities"

"any place at all will become a “university” in our country once such a place has been declared a university; parents will send their children to it; professors and lecturers from the older and more established universities will help to get it accredited and “teach” in it for negotiated remunerations; and it will produce both “graduates” with impressive-looking certificates and diplomas and “professors” who will in time circulate around and within the entire university system"......

The quotations on education decay are endless!

Thank you Dr. Oyekola for your comments and great quotations . These open the actual secrets of the present day higher education system, at least of the developing countries.

Regards.

Deborah Sharon

Cleaning of the system should happen both at an individual level and also from the top (system). Ethics is constantly corroding.

Oyedemi Oyekola

Dear Deborah,

Both ethics and values have been completely eroded. It wasn't like this in the past! You do a meaningful research.

Regards

I want to draw your attention to the fact that in my opinion the prototype of Perelman was very well described by the famous Russian writer Anton Chekhov in his short story "The Bet"

http://aliclassroom.weebly.com/uploads/6/1/2/2/61229617/the-bet_pdf.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bet_(short_story)

Here, the lawyer refused two million rubles, which he won from the banker on the basis of the prisoner's bet. Here is the key phrase from the story: "... the banker finds a note written by the lawyer." The note declares that in his time in confinement he has learned to despise material goods as a fleeting thing and he believes that knowledge is worth more than money. renounce the reward of the bet ". In this story, I saw a direct analogy of the Young Lawyer with Perelman and the Banker's analogy with the Community of ill-wishers who spoiled his psyche for 8 years of uninterrupted intrigues and made him unsociable. However, in the end, justice triumphed, but Perelman broke down and completely disengaged. I do not see any of his guilt. What is important is that it is a huge scientific result with far-reaching consequences. This is a great breakthrough in science. Think, for 7 years he was looking for a solution to this problem, and then another 8 years of constant intrigue. I understand his motivation well. This is his full right to be so. I watched a lot of videos about him and everywhere I heard only enthusiastic words and thanks but not a single word of reproach.

However, now I would like to mention another important event https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm83Jn-yXX4 which in my opinion was rendered by Perelman, who sent a challenge to the Scientific community about Honesty and Decency in science. It was a kind of implicit protest. Disagreement with the Mathematical Society was only an excuse, in fact this was a protest. I am deeply convinced of this.

So, on November 23, Putin severely criticized the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) and officials who took part in the elections to the academy. The President's speech at the meeting of the Council for Science and Education looked like "indicative flogging." He spoke with the president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladimir Fortov, in an intrinsically rigid manner and ironically responded on the scientific achievements of civil servants elected at the Russian Academy of Sciences. The essence of the claims is approximately as follows: why these people got into the academy, if I (Putin) recommended not to allow this. After all, if an official is working conscientiously in a public office, he should not have time for science.

Here is the key point of this meeting:

Putin: Vladimir Evgenievich (Fortov), my the first question: Why did you do this? Are they such big scientists that the Academy of Sciences can not do without them? And the second question: What should I do with this now?

Fortov: All of them said that they received permission from their leaders.

Putin: No, my question no was in this. Are they such big scientists that they should be academics?

Fortov: They passed the entire competition without any exceptions being withdrawn. We have such an election technology that six times this person should be heard and vote six times for him.

Putin: You do not directly answer my question, Vladimir Evgenievich. Nevertheless, I will finish your sentence for you: all they are big scientists, right?

Fortov: They deserve to be elected.

Putin: So they are still big scientists. I will not torture you by the second question: I think that I should give them the opportunity to do science, because, apparently, their scientific activity is much more important than the execution of routine administrative duties in authorities and management.

The next day all these new academicians were dismissed from all state posts. All these people, who occupy very high state posts, were elected to the Academy of Sciences to use their administrative resources for their own mercenary purposes. Here we can see such an abominable phenomenon as hidden corruption: trade in academic titles in exchange for preferences in obtaining certain services from powerful people. Most of these people had no contribution to science at all. Thus, Putin has taken the first step in clearing science of crooks, about which we are so many indignant here.

Dear Aleksandar Jovanovic,

I was trying to find a more accurate answer to your question. Immediately I apologize for the fact that the text turned out to be very long and for the quality of English.

Originally wrote that Perelman went to Sweden for permanent residence, where he has some contract and does a scientific job at home. But Perelman and his mother used to live in Petersburg. Nakolko I understood correctly from sources on the Internet, at the moment Perelman mainly lives in Petersburg and sometimes comes to Sweden. As for the links, the best one is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAhpB98iHQQ (in Russian): What has remained unchanged and what has Grigory Perelman lost in his life? Among other links (unfortunately, too, everything is Russian) I used:

1. The youth of the genius Perelman! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krGPtiZOonY

2. ABOUT THE CAUSES OF CARE OF G. Perelman from the Institute of Mathematics https://trv-science.ru/2010/03/30/o-prichinax-uxoda-g-perelmana-iz-pomi/

3. Shook the world and left the mathematics https://www.svoboda.org/a/1988781.html

4. Sergey Kislyakov about Perelman http://matholimp.livejournal.com/278876.html

5. Arnold about Perelman https://www.linux.org.ru/forum/talks/4971682/page1

6. https://www.chayka.org/node/2049 Academician Vladimir Arnold. Interview.

7. https://lechaim.ru/ARHIV/233/4x4.htm GRISHA PERELMAN. "NINE GENIUS"

Now I want to summarize my version of why Perelman has become the way we all know him now.

In 1992, Perelman went on an internship in the US and met with Richard Hamilton, who told Perelman about the Ricci stream and that he was almost close to resolving the famous Poincaré conjecture, but he has difficulties to overcome the impasse. Perelman was offered to stay in the United States under very good conditions, but he refused and in 1996 returned to St. Petersburg. Since that day, he is completely absorbed in the search for a solution to the Poincare problem. Finally, he finds an approach to overcome the impasse Hamilton spoke of. He wrote a letter to Hamilton that he had found the right solution to the Poincaré problem and offered cooperation. However, Hamilton did not respond to this letter. After some expectation, Perelman decided to act independently. He published three famous articles in 2002-2003: The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds Finite extinction time for the solutions to the Ricci flow on certain three-manifolds s, he continuously worked for 7 years from 1996 to 2003 to provide full evidence. This was the first stage.

Now begins the second stage: verification of proof. In 2003, Perelman received an invitation to come to the US and lecture on his proof of the Poincare conjecture. He immediately gladly agreed and came. Many lectures were delivered at his lectures, including Richard Hamilton. However, after the lecture, he did not go up to Perelman and did not shake his hand. This was certainly a pity for Perelman, because it was Hamilton who inspired him to solve this problem, but Hamilton's ambition and ambitions were higher. In 2004-2006, three independent groups of mathematicians were involved in verifying Perelman's results: Bruce Kleiner, John Lott, University of Michigan; Zhu Xiping, Sun Yat-sen University, Cao Huaidong, University of Lehigh; John Morgan, Columbia University, Gan Tian, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.All three groups have come to the conclusion that the Poincare conjecture has been fully proved, but Chinese mathematicians, Zhu Xiping and Cao Huaydong together with their teacher Yau Shintong attempted plagiarism, saying that they found "full proof." They declined this statement in the future. And from this moment begins the explanation of the reasons, which finally broke Perelman. Chinese mathematicians, under the pressure of Yau Shintong, behaved very dishonestly: they wrote that Perelman had presented only one version of the proof, that his proof was not complete, that another full version of the proof belonged to them. They published a book about it and described in detail all the details. Perelman's guide on his thesis AD Aleksandrov said: Mathematics is the most moral science.

Perelman all this time believed in mathematics as the most moral of all sciences, where one can not commit dishonest deeds. It would seem that unlike other sciences like physics and chemistry, there is a strict verified proof: if you can - refute. In what doubt? And now it is time to fight immorality. Pernelman has a very delicate and vulnerable psyche: it must be mentioned that he is very familiar with classical music, often visits the opera house, he himself plays the violin. It should be noted that the resentment slowly grew even more because none of his fellow mathematicians in Russia supported him at this very difficult stage of his life and he was very upset. He was alone with his ill-wishers in this fateful period of his life. The psychic of Perelman was severely broken, he lost faith in the purity of science.

From that moment he became a recluse. I can understand him. I watched the sources on the Internet, indeed, with the exception of Academician Ludwig Faddev (director of the Institute, in which Perelman worked, who spoke very well of Perelman in his interviews on the Internet), I did not find any of the mathematicians who would say nice words about him at that time. Apparently their ambitions were higher. Even the opinion of Academician Arnold as the most famous mathematician in Russia was very meager for praise https://www.chayka.org/node/2049 Academician Vladimir Arnold. Interview "Chaika" "What did Perelman do? He only proved Poincaré's conjecture (filling in the gaps in the construction proposed by R. Hamilton with which he first tried to prove Arnold's hypothesis, and then, when it did not, the Poincaré and Thurston hypothesis.)" The Poincaré theorem " - a strange term: Poincaré himself first published her proof, but then found a mistake in it.To correct it, he expressed a remarkable hypothesis (and not a theorem!) - it was Perelman who proved it. "

Apparently, mathematicians could not recognize the fact that by exalting Perelman they thereby lower themselves in the eyes of the mathematical community. Indeed, it happened: Perelman eclipsed Arnold, now he is the most famous Russian mathematician. And then the events went on. In December 2005, Grigory Perelman resigned from the post of a leading researcher at the Laboratory of Mathematical Physics, retired from the Institute of Mathematics and almost completely broke off contacts with colleagues. In March 2010, the Clay Mathematical Institute awarded Grigory Perelman with a prize of one million US dollars for proving the Poincare conjecture, which was the first in the history of awarding a prize for solving one of the Millennium Challenges. In June 2010, Perelman ignored the mathematical conference in Paris, on which the "Millennium Award" was supposed to be presented for the proof of the Poincare conjecture, and on July 1, 2010, publicly announced his refusal of the award In September 2011 it became known that the mathematician refused to accept the offer to become a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In conclusion, I want to quote one phrase from https://lechaim.ru/ARHIV/233/4x4.htm GRISHA PERELMAN. "NINE GENIUS" "In the case of Perelman, apparently, it was also clear that he did more than proved one of the tasks of the millennium. In support of recalling a fragment of my conversation with Jean-Michel Bismuth on the contribution of Perelman: "It's amazing that the method of solving it is even more interesting than the solution itself. Of course, the solution of the Poincare conjecture was very important, but not only that! A whole fantastic world has opened up, in which so many things from mathematics and theoretical physics are mixed! And this is much more important than the role played by the very hypothesis of Poincaré" , I want to emphasize: "... the method of solving it is even more interesting than the very solution of the problem." This is very important to remember. I also want to note that the peculiarity of the solution method is that the topological problem was solved not by a topological method. Here I want to go smoothly to another Problem of the Thousand (Cook's problem) under number 1: Equality of classes P and NP. One of the specific tasks is as follows: Given n positive integers A1, A2, A3, ... An. Let the sum of these numbers be equal to S. Can one of these numbers make up a subset of numbers with a given total size B. In other words, is it possible to split the original set A = {A1, A2, A3, ... An} into two disjoint subtopics so that the sum of the numbers in one of them is B, and the other would be S-B? We need to find a polynomial algorithm from the class P or prove that such an algorithm does not exist at all. I want to recall that there was a case, for example, with the tenth problem of Hilbert (to find an algorithm for solving the Diophantine equation in integers), which was solved by the Russian mathematician Yuri Matiyasevich. He proved that the algorithm required in the problem does not exist. It is very possible that the same thing can happen to Cook's problem: that is, there is no polynomial algorithm that proves the assertion "P is not equal to NP".

And here is the culmination: is it possible to use the Perelman method to solve this famous problem number 1?

Stephan Poirier

Hi All,

The question is very interesting and the many answers provided very appropriate.

I am a Physics Optics and Laser M.Sc as well as a highly experienced Software Engineer. I have contributed to many published research by being a research associate developing the software used to create the scientific results for published papers. I have never been the primary author to an academic research article, this because, as I am always plunged in the very details of the scientific results production, I see way too many possibilities of errors in the code used to generate the research results. I would always need more time to revise the code and would generally disagree to publish. I am not a perfectionist with engineering, but maybe I am a little with science.

Independent of what I just said, I see another human behavior among the scientific community that can twist scientific results and scientific publications. Let's take the Climate Change example, as I participate in that field of research lately. Most scientists in this field are convinced of a global warming and sea level rise, but what if the sun was to drop very little and global climate was to go in another direction? Anyway, as a hands-on research associate engineering the software used for generating climate change study results, I assure you, I do not adopt the general consensus nor my research supervisor's perspectives on the most probable outcome of near future climate change. I must not really tell the researchers around, for they do not want to hear about this. But silently, I will engineer the software so climate could go both ways.

So, good research is not just about ethics, it is also about not adopting any preconceived ideas and conclusions during the research phase of a project.

Also, to improve research, research teams could even push their undergoing researchs on the internet, but who would want that, right? Possibly having its research criticized before publication. Possibly encouraging a much greater competition of their research.

In the name of science, there would be no problems there. I think it would improve science.

Maybe the internet 3.0 (i.e. IPFS) and public blockchains will help the scientific community to operate, to publish results and to share knowledge.

But it will remain to each of us to have ethics and prevent from having preconceived ideas creating biased research results.

All scientists should remember this quote from Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

Yes. Many times research proposals are designed with pre convinced ideas. The researcher become biased subconsciously.

It is also one kind of cheating with science.

Thank you, Dr. Poirier.

Harry Barton Essel

This issue of compulsion has been a thorn in the flesh of many academicians. All higher education institution require a certain number of publications from faculty before you are promoted. This is forcing out all kinds of publications from faculty. It has also resulted in the falling standards of scholarly and empirical outputs. However, I believe the individual researcher has the power in his own has to decide. If you want to be recognized as a good researcher produce quality publications, not substandard works.

Dr. Stephan Poirier - I appreciate your conclusion with the quote of Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - highly relevant to the topic.

Regards and thanks