diff --git a/_index.db b/_index.db index 6831c4056..f7c926e1d 100644 Binary files a/_index.db and b/_index.db differ diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Integrity_Risk_Index-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Integrity_Risk_Index-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..557f208a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Integrity_Risk_Index-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +--- +title: "Research Integrity Risk Index" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Integrity_Risk_Index" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:28.883838+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²) is a diagnostic, bibliometric framework designed to assess institutional exposure to selected research-integrity-related risks. Developed in 2025 by Lokman Meho (لقمان محّو), a professor and University Librarian at the American University of Beirut, RI² is presented as complementary to conventional global university rankings, which primarily emphasize publication volume and citation counts. RI² evaluates universities using three institution-level bibliometric indicators associated with integrity risk signals in scholarly publishing: retracted journal articles, publications in journals that were subsequently delisted from major bibliographic databases, and institutional self-citation patterns. The framework emerged amid broader debates over the limitations of citation- and volume-based ranking methodologies in capturing research integrity-related risks. + + +== How does RI² work? == + + +=== Methodology === +RI² assesses academic institutions using three bibliometric indicators derived from verifiable publications and citation data. +Delisted Journal Risk (D Rate) measures the percentage of an institution's research output published in journals that were later delisted from Scopus or Web of Science following those databases' re-evaluation processes for editorial or publishing standards. +Retraction Risk (R-Rate) measures the number of retracted journal articles per 1,000 published articles over a defined publication window. Retraction data are compiled and cross-validated using multiple independent sources, including the Retraction Watch Database, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, with filtering procedures applied to exclude duplicate records and retractions unrelated to authorship issues. +Self citation Rate (S-Rate) measures the proportion of citations to an institution's publications that originate from the same institution. Citation data are sourced from InCites, and the indicator is reported descriptively and interpreted in relation to peer institutions within the same field classifications. +All three indicators are field normalized and benchmarked against a fixed global reference group comprising the 1,000 publishing universities worldwide. Each indicator is scaled to a 0–1 range using Min-Max normalization with caps applied to extreme values, and the normalized indicators are combined using equal weighting to generate the composite RI2 score. +Based on their composite scores, institutions are assigned to one of five percentile-based risk tiers: Low Risk, Normal Variation, Watch List, High Risk, and Red Flag. Tier placement reflects relative exposure to integrity-related publishing risks and is not intended as an assessment of research quality, misconduct, or institutional performance. +Detailed methodology is available online on the official RI² website. + + +== Output and Visualization == +RI² website provides tabular results for the world's most publishing universities along with world maps that illustrate country-level D-Rate and R-rate, allowing examination of geographic variations in risk profiles. + + +== Red-flagged universities by Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²) == +This table lists the universities flagged as highest-risk (Red Tier) in the Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²). + + +== External reception and Adoption == +RI² has received coverage in international scientific and higher-education media. A 2025 article in Nature discussed institutional retraction patterns and cited RI² data in its analysis of universities with high numbers of retracted publications. University World News reported on the development of RI² as a response to concerns about metric-driven distortions in global university rankings, describing the index as a diagnostic tool rather than a punitive ranking. +Regional and national media outlets have also reported on RI² findings in country-specific contexts. In India, Science Chronicle discussed universities classified in the highest RI² risk tiers in the context of debates on research assessment and retractions. Coverage in Al-Ghad (Jordan) similarly reported on RI² results in relation to national higher-education institutions. +Beyond media reporting, RI² has been referenced in scholarly and policy-oriented discussions on integrity-aware approaches to research assessment. A commentary published by the Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law (ISAIL) cited RI² in discussions on incorporating research-integrity considerations into institutional evaluation frameworks. +In 2026, Egypt's Supreme Council of Universities of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research issued a government report titled Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²), presenting RI² as an early-warning, data-driven framework for assessing institution-level integrity-related publishing risks and offering recommendations for Egyptian universities and research-governance bodies. + + +== Related methodological developments == +Following the introduction of RI², subsequent work in the research-assessment literature has employed institution-level indicators similar to those proposed in the framework. In particular, retractions, publications in delisted journals, and self-citation were recently used by John P. A. Ioannidis and collaborators as adjustment factors in an institution-level percentile ranking framework. + + +== See also == +Retraction Watch +Scientific misconduct +Citation Impact +Predatory publishing +Retraction in academic publishing +Publish or perish +Citation + + +== References == + + +== External links == +Official RI² Dashboard +Lokman I. Meho, MLS, PhD \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_paper_mill-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_paper_mill-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5f8f82c98 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_paper_mill-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +--- +title: "Research paper mill" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_paper_mill" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:30.198721+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +In research, a paper mill is a business that produces poor quality or completely fraudulent journal papers that seem to resemble genuine research, as well as sells authorship on such papers. +Paper mills are an example of academic dishonesty that affects all fields of academic publishing including academic writing, scientific writing and medical writing, and represents a failure of research ethics and research integrity. + + +== Activities == +In some cases, paper mills are sophisticated operations that sell authorship positions on legitimate (but poor quality) research, but in many cases the papers contain fraudulent data and can be heavily plagiarized or otherwise unprofessional. These services are advertised on platforms such as Facebook, Telegram and WhatsApp. +Activities include contract cheating, academic ghostwriting and medical ghostwriting. It may include data fabrication, leading to junk science and retractions in academic literature. + + +== History and prevalence == +Research paper mills first emerged as a significant problem during the 2010s, though the earliest known papers attributed to paper mills are known from the 2000s, at least as early as 2004. In 2013, Science published an investigation of various kinds of research misconduct in China, including noting the practice of buying papers from an online catalogue. In 2014 COPE wrote an editorial raising concerns on agencies selling services, including authorship of pre-written manuscripts. +According to a 2021 report in Nature, thousands of papers in academic journals had been traced to paper mills from China, Iran and Russia, and some journals were revamping their review processes." Chinese researchers have been identified as particularly prevalent customers of paper mill services. Differing estimates put the share of paper mill productions between 2% and 20% of published academic papers, with particularly severe problems in some areas of biomedicine. A 2026 study estimated using machine learning analysis that approximately 10% of recently published literature of cancer may be the product of paper mills, rising to over 20-22% for liver, gastric and bone cancer, with the number of published suspect papers haven risen exponentially from essentially zero flagged papers in 2000. China was found to have the proportionally highest number of flagged papers with 36% of the total Chinese output being considered suspect, followed by Iran with 20%, Saudi Arabia with 16%, Egypt with 15%, and Pakistan and Malaysia with 13% each. The apparent prevalence of paper mills in China has been attributed to the heightened "publish or perish" pressure placed on academics and other scientific professionals in China, particularly on medical doctors and nurses, who are required to publish academic papers in order to receive promotions despite research not being a significant part of their job. + + +== Detection == +A 2024 peer-reviewed forensic study showed that provenance-based image analysis can automatically cluster manuscripts that originate from the same paper mill, providing scalable evidence of systematic production. + + +== Examples == + +In early 2022, Times Higher Education and the Science Magazine News department covered a report exposing a Russian paper mill company International Publisher Ltd. The report identified hundreds of published academic papers where positions for authorship had been sold through a Russian website allowing researchers to pay for academic prestige without requiring legitimate research contributions. During the three-year period analyzed, 419 articles were identified that were matched to manuscripts later published in many different academic journals, with a significant bias towards publications in predatory journals. While the paper mill targeted various journals, almost 100 papers were published in International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Kassel University Press) alone, seemingly coordinated through the involvement of journal editors hosting Special Issues with space for coauthors auctioned off for anywhere from $180–5000 USD. In a separate network, guest editors and salaried academic editors for MDPI were found to coordinate sale of authorship across four different MDPI journals, totalling over 20 papers (picture, right). Beyond collusion between editors and International Publisher Ltd., many legitimate research papers also sold authorship unknown to the journal editors, and were ultimately accepted in journals published by Elsevier, Oxford University Press, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Wolters Kluwer, and Wiley-Blackwell. As of April 6, 2022, many of these publishers have opened an investigation into the matter. +In May 2024, the Wall Street Journal published a report on fake studies that affected New Jersey publisher Wiley. More than 11,300 papers were retracted, and 19 journals were reportedly closed. The problematic papers were linked to Hindawi, an Egyptian publisher of about 250 scientific journals that Wiley acquired in 2021. The article detailed how the research paper mill fraud worked, and highlighted individual efforts to identify and prevent future fraud. The article also warned that artificial intelligence was going to make fraud more difficult to detect. +By analysing duplicated images, Richardson et al hypothesize that paper mills may have used a large bank of images for mass publications and may have collaborated with editors in targeted journals such as PLOS ONE and Hindawi for expedited publications. Paper mills can switch journals quickly if a partner journals get deindexed from literature aggregators. The researchers cited "Academic Research and Development Association" (ARDA), based in Chennai, India, as an example of such a paper mill. + + +== See also == +Academic mill (disambiguation) +Diploma mill +Essay mill +Research Integrity Risk Index +Predatory publishing +Publish or perish + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_Watch-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_Watch-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..85d728472 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_Watch-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +--- +title: "Retraction Watch" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_Watch" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:32.785773+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers and on related topics. The blog was launched in August 2010 and is produced by science writers Ivan Oransky (Former Vice President, Editorial Medscape) and Adam Marcus (editor of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News). Its parent organization is The Center for Scientific Integrity (CSI), a US 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. + + +== Motivation and scope == +In 2011, Oransky and Marcus pointed out in Nature that the peer review process for scholarly publications continues long after the publication date. They were motivated to launch Retraction Watch to encourage this continuation and to increase the transparency of the retraction process. They observed that retractions of papers generally are not announced, that the reasons for retractions are not publicized, and that other researchers or the public who are unaware of the retraction may make decisions based on invalid results. Oransky described an example of a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that reported a potential role for a drug against some types of breast cancers. Although the paper was later retracted, its retraction was not reported in media outlets that had earlier reported its positive conclusions, with a company having been established on the basis of the ultimately retracted conclusions. +Oransky and Marcus claim that retractions also provide a window into the self-correcting nature of science, can provide insight into cases of scientific fraud, and can "be the source of great stories that say a lot about how science is conducted". In January 2021, more than 50 studies have cited Retraction Watch as the scientific publishing community is exploring the impact of retracted papers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Retraction Watch maintained a separate list of retracted articles that added to misinformation about the pandemic, with additional research undertaken to analyse the subsequent pollution of further research as retracted papers are cited and used within scholarly research. +In 2023, in the wake of the resignation of Stanford University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Oransky and Marcus co-authored op-eds in Scientific American and The Guardian. They estimated that scientific misconduct was more common than is reported. They also assessed that, despite recent scandals involving research misconduct, the academic community was not interested in exposing wrongdoing and scientific errors. However, all members of the academic community are responsible for the delays and lack of action. + + +== Impact == +Retraction Watch has demonstrated that retractions are more common than was previously thought. When Retraction Watch was launched, Marcus "wondered if we'd have enough material". It had been estimated that about 80 papers were retracted annually. However, in its first year, the blog reported on approximately 200 retractions. In October 2019 the Retraction Watch Database reached a milestone 20,000 entries As of January 2024, it contains over 50,000 entries. + + +== Hijacked journal tracker == +In 2022, Retraction Watch added a feature that tracks journal hijacking. Political scientist Anna Abalkina had developed a method for identifying hijacked journal domains based on an analysis of the archives of clone journals. This method is based on the argument that fraudulent publishers recycle identical papers to create a fictitious archive for a hijacked journal. Methods used to locate or confirm hijacked statuses of journals include duplicated journal archives, identical website templates, growth in indexing, anomalous citations, and scholars’ comments. Abalkina created the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker in partnership with Retraction Watch. + + +== Administration == +Retraction Watch has been funded by a variety of sources, including donations and grants. They received grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The database of retractions was funded by a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation in 2015. They have partnered with the Center for Open Science, which is also funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, to create a retraction database on the Open Science Framework. +In 2023, Crossref and Retraction Watch began a collaboration in which Retraction Watch would provide its database and Crossref would process, open, analyze, and present the data. + + +== See also == +PubPeer +Replication crisis +Research Integrity Risk Index +Center for Open Science +Journal hijacking +India Research Watch + + +== References == + + +== External links == +Official website +Center for Scientific Integrity \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a6d7cf323 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +--- +title: "Retraction in academic publishing" +chunk: 1/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:31.503137+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +In academic publishing, a retraction is a mechanism by which the content of a paper published in an academic journal is disavowed so that its results and conclusions can no longer be relied upon. Retracted articles are not usually removed from the published literature but marked as retracted. In some rare cases a retracted article may be removed from publication, such as if it is defamatory, breaches copyright, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a health risk to the public. The purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity, not to punish the authors. Detailed guideline on retraction have been published. Papers are typically retracted as seriously flawed and essentially incorrect, due to error or misdeeds, as distinct from small corrections to published articles. +Although the majority of retractions in biomedical and life sciences are linked to scientific misconduct, they are often cited as evidence of the self-correcting nature of science. However, some scholars argue this view is misleading, describing it as a myth. A retraction may simply be due to a paper later being found to be in serious error, as in the historical case of Benjamin Wilson's 1756 paper, discussed below. + +== Procedure == +A retraction may be initiated by the editors of a journal, by the author(s) of the paper, or by their institution. Retractions are typically accompanied by a retraction notice written by the editors or authors explaining the reason for the retraction. Such notices may also include a note from the authors with apologies for the previous error and/or expressions of gratitude to persons who disclosed the error to the author. +There have been many cases of retraction of scientific publications. Retraction Watch provides updates on new retractions, and discusses general issues in relation to retractions. + +== History == +The earliest recorded retraction in a scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific publication is "A Retraction, by Mr. Benjamin Wilson, F.R.S. of his former Opinion, concerning the Explication of the Leyden Experiment," published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on 24 June 1756. In it, Benjamin Wilson, a British painter and scientist, formally withdrew his previous explanation of the Leyden jar experiment, a foundational study in the field of electricity, on the grounds that subsequent discoveries, particularly those by Benjamin Franklin, had shown his original interpretation to be incorrect. + +== Retraction surge == +A 2011 paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics attempted to quantify retraction rates in PubMed over time to determine if the rate was increasing, even while taking into account the increased number of overall publications occurring each year. The author found that the rate of increase in retractions was greater than the rate of increase in publications. Moreover, the author notes the following:"It is particularly striking that the number of papers retracted for fraud increased more than sevenfold in the 6 years between 2004 and 2009. During the same period, the number of papers retracted for a scientific mistake did not even double..." (p. 251). Although the author suggests that his findings may indeed indicate a recent increase in scientific fraud, he also acknowledges other possibilities. For example, increased rates of fraud in recent years may simply indicate that journals are doing a better job of policing the scientific literature than they have in the past. Furthermore, because retractions occur for a very small percentage of overall publications (fewer than 1 in 1,000 articles), a few scientists who are willing to commit large amounts of fraud can highly impact retraction rates. For example, the author points out that Jan Hendrik Schön fabricated results in 15 retracted papers in the dataset he reviewed, all of which were retracted in 2002 and 2003, "so he alone was responsible for 56% of papers retracted for fraud in 2002—2003" (p 252). +During the COVID-19 pandemic, academia had seen a quick increase in fast-track peer-review articles dealing with SARS-CoV-2 problems. As a result, a large number of papers have been retracted due to quality and/or data issues, leading many experts to consider both the quality of peer review, as well as the standards of retraction practices. +Retracted studies may continue to be cited. This may happen in cases where scholars are unaware of the retraction, in particular when the retraction occurs long after the original publication. +The number of journal articles being retracted had risen from about 1,600 in 2013 to 10,000 in 2023. Most of the retractions in 2023 were contributed by Hindawi journals. The significant number of retractions involving Chinese co-authors—over 17,000 since 2021, including 8,000 from Hindawi journals—has led China to launch a nationwide audit addressing retractions and research misconduct. Retractions are also measured among highly cited researchers. + +== Alternative versions of retraction == + +=== Retraction with replacement === +Retraction with replacement, an action historically taken with respect to a low percentage of retracted papers, is a practice newer than simple removal of an article and was developed as a means of correcting error in the scientific record while taking care not to impute to the retracted paper's author(s) any fraudulent or other dishonest intent. Retraction with replacement allows the author to correct their mistakes in the original paper before submitting an edited version to replace it. The journal can then decide to retract the original paper before uploading the corrected version online, usually with a notice on the article page. + +=== Self-retraction === +Self-retraction is a request from a paper's authors to retract their own work from being published. Self-retraction by an author is preferable to a retraction and subsequent investigation from the journal, which may harm the author's reputation; it also shows integrity on the part of the authors. + +== Notable retractions == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..95cc8dea3 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +--- +title: "Retraction in academic publishing" +chunk: 2/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:31.503137+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Retraction for error === +2025 - A controversial paper claiming that the ancient village of Tall el-Hammam in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea was destroyed by a cosmic airburst was retracted by the journal because the evidence did not support the conclusions; the authors maintained their position, and intended to republish the original article with new data. +2013 - Study on the Mediterranean diet published in New England Journal of Medicine and widely covered by media was retracted due to unreported non-random assignments. This was part of a larger effort by anesthesiologist John Carlisle to verify proper randomization in thousands of studies; he found problems in about 2% of those analyzed. +2012 - Séralini affair - Article suggesting reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and the herbicide RoundUp retracted due to criticism of experimental design. According to the editor of the journal, a "more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size". +2003 - A study on the relationship between use of the drug ecstasy and dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates published in Science was retracted, due to methamphetamine unintentionally being used in the experiment instead of ecstasy. See Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5086061d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +--- +title: "Retraction in academic publishing" +chunk: 3/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:31.503137+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Retraction for fraud or misconduct === +2025 An article written by Aidan Toner-Rodgers, a doctoral student of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), intended to be published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, claimed that artificial intelligence had been shown to massively improve efficiency at an unnamed materials science lab. Despite not having been peer-reviewed, the paper, available through ArXiv, enjoyed favourable coverage from outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and Nature. In addition, it was praised by MIT economists Daron Acemoglu and David Autor, the former of whom had been co-awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for 2024. The economists were then contacted in January 2025 by a computer scientist with experience in material science, who had disputed the legitimacy of the data, which was followed by an internal review conducted at MIT in early February; the review concluded that the paper was fraudulent, with Toner-Rodgers being expelled from the school. MIT requested that the paper be removed from arXiv. A press release from MIT's economics department issued on 16 May 2025 stated that they "[had] no confidence in the provenance, reliability or validity of the data and [had] no confidence in the veracity of the research contained in the paper," without specifying details. Ben Shindel in his Substack "The BS Detector" speculated that the materials science company mentioned in the paper did not exist as it was implausible that they would provide such a large amount of data to an economics student, in addition to pointing out several instances where the p-values seemed to be unrealistically low. Shindel further doubted Toner-Rodgers's application of a single complex method to analyze the unique qualities of vastly different materials, as well as describing as a "smoking gun" that one of his graphs "looks eerily similar" to one from a 2020 paper on drug analysis. +2024 A 2002 article published by Nature, written by Catherine Verfaillie and multiple co-authors, purportedly found that adult bone marrow cells could be used as an alternative to embryonic stem cells. The paper was retracted on 17 June 2024 by the journal as two of the figures had been edited with image manipulation software. Suspicions regarding the paper had been shared since 2006, when several research groups failed to replicate the findings presented; by 2009, two of Verfaillie's other papers had also been retracted due to image manipulation. As of 2025, the article is the most-cited article to have been retracted, with 4,482 citations having been made to the research before it was retracted. +2021 An article studying the open-source community by Qiushi Wu and Kangjie Lu at the University of Minnesota was withdrawn after the Linux Foundation discovered that the researchers had submitted patches for the Linux kernel with intentional bugs and without obtaining appropriate consent. +2020 On 8 January 2020, Russian journals retracted more than 800 articles after a large-scale investigation conducted by the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) following claims of unethical publications. +2019 On 11 April 2019, two articles on DNA damage by Abderrahmane Kaidi of the University of Bristol, one published in Science in 2010 and another in Nature in 2013, were retracted following evidence of data fabrication. +2018 Five articles in the field of consumer behavior and marketing research by Brian Wansink at Cornell University came under scrutiny after peers pointed out inconsistencies in the data. Wansink had written a blog post about asking a graduate student to "salvage" conclusions. Cornell University launched an investigation, which determined in 2018 that Wansink had committed academic misconduct; he resigned. Eighteen of Wansink's research papers were later also retracted as similar issues were found in other publications. +2014 An article by Haruko Obokata et al. on STAP cells, a method of inducing a cell to become a stem cell, was proven to be falsified. Originally published in Nature, it was retracted later that year. It generated much controversy, and after an institutional investigation, one of the authors committed suicide. +2011 Eight journal articles authored by Duke University cancer researcher Anil Potti and others, which describe genomic signatures of cancer prognosis and predictors of response to cancer treatment, were retracted in 2011 and 2012. The retraction notices generally state that the results of the analyses described in the articles could not be reproduced. In November 2015, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found that Potti had engaged in research misconduct. +2010 A 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield proposing that the MMR vaccine might cause autism, which was responsible for the MMR vaccine controversy, was retracted because "the claims in the original paper that children were 'consecutively referred' and that investigations were 'approved' by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false." +2009 Numerous papers written by Scott Reuben from 1996 to 2009 were retracted after it was discovered he never actually conducted any of the trials he claimed to have run. +2007 Retraction of several articles written by social psychologist Jennifer Lerner and colleagues from journals including Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and Biological Psychiatry. +2006 Retraction of Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts, written by Hwang Woo-Suk. Fabrications in the field of stem cell research led to 'indictment on embezzlement and bioethics law violations linked to faked stem cell research'. +2003 Numerous articles with questionable data from physicist Jan Hendrik Schön were retracted from many journals, including both Science and Nature. +2002 Retraction of announced discovery of elements 116 and 118. See Livermorium, Victor Ninov. +1991 Thereza Imanishi-Kari, who worked with David Baltimore, published a 1986 article in the journal Cell on immunology, which showed unexpected results on how the immune system rearranges its genes to produce antibodies against antigens it encounters for the first time. Margot O'Toole, a postdoctoral researcher for Imanishi-Kari, claimed that she could not reproduce Imanishi-Kari's results and alleged that Imanishi-Kari had fabricated the data. After a major investigation, the paper was retracted when the National Institutes of Health concluded that data in the 1986 Imanishi-Kari article had been falsified. Five years later, in 1996, an expert panel appointed by the federal government found no evidence of scientific fraud and cleared Imanishi-Kari of misconduct, but the paper was not reinstated. +1982 John Darsee fabricated results in the Cardiac Research Laboratory of Eugene Braunwald at Harvard in the early 1980s. He was initially thought to be brilliant by his boss, but was caught out by fellow researchers at the laboratory. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-3.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6ab4d313e --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing-3.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +--- +title: "Retraction in academic publishing" +chunk: 4/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:31.503137+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Retraction for ethical violations === +2019 An article by Wendy Rogers (Macquarie University, Australia) and colleagues on BMJ Open called for the mass retraction of more than 400 scientific papers on organ transplantation, due to concerns that the organs had been obtained unethically from Chinese prisoners. Rogers said the journals, researchers and clinicians who used these studies were complicit in these methods of organ trafficking. According to the study, the transplant research community had failed to live up to ethical standards, continuing to publish articles based on use of organs from death row inmates. In 2019, PLOS ONE retracted 21 articles related to this incident. +2017 The journal Liver International retracted a Chinese study of liver transplantation because 564 livers grafted in the course of the research over 4 years could not be traced. The experts pointed out that it was implausible a hospital could have so many freely donated livers for transplantation, given the small number of donors in China at the time. + +=== Retraction over data provenance === +2020 On 22 May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, an article was published in The Lancet which claimed to find evidence, based on a database of 96032 COVID-19 patients, that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine increase the chance of patients dying in hospital, and the chance of ventricular arrhythmia. Medical researchers and newspapers expressed suspicions about the validity of the data, provided by Surgisphere, a company founded by one of the authors of the study. The article was formally retracted by 4 June 2020, on request by the lead author Mandeep Mehra. + +=== Retraction over public relations issues === +2016 On 4 March 2016, an article in PLOS ONE about the functioning of the human hand was retracted due to outrage on social media over a reference to "Creator" in the paper, a controversy dubbed CreatorGate. +1896 Jose Rizal was said to have issued a letter of retraction regarding his novels and other published articles against the Roman Catholic Church, see José Rizal: Retraction controversy. + +== See also == +Fabrication (science) +Post-publication peer review +Scientific misconduct +Sokal affair +Erratum +Research Integrity Risk Index +Correction (newspaper) + +== References == + +== Further reading == +Lesk, Michael (2015). "How many scientific papers are not original?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (1): 6–7. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112....6L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1422282112. PMC 4291619. PMID 25538304. +Nag, S.N., Roy, A. and Sudhier, K.G. (2025), "Global perspectives on retracted papers in artificial intelligence and machine learning: a bibliometric study", Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-09-2024-0582 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d207e94d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +--- +title: "Salami slicing tactics" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:34.172381+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Salami slicing tactics, also known as salami slicing, salami tactics, the salami-slice strategy, or salami attacks, is the practice of using a series of many small actions to produce a much larger action or result that would be difficult or unlawful to perform all at once. +Salami tactics are a generally subversive strategy used extensively in geopolitics, such as countries attempting to expand their borders, and war games as a method of achieving goals gradually without provoking significant escalation. +Perhaps the most famous example of the salami tactic was through WWII and into the start of the Cold War, with the formation of the Eastern Bloc in Europe by the USSR. By the time WWII ended, Eastern Europe was under the control of the Soviets. This advantage was used to ensure the election of submissive communist satellite states in several countries. As a result, from 1945 to 1949 through a series of slices, the USSR was able to bring Albania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and East Germany under its control without escalating incidents between its near peer adversaries. +In finance, the term "salami attack" is used to describe schemes by which large sums are fraudulently accumulated by repeated transfers of imperceptibly small sums of money. + + +== Financial schemes == +Computerized banking systems make it possible to repeatedly divert tiny amounts of money, typically due to rounding off, to a beneficiary's account. This general concept is used in popular automatic-savings apps. It has also been said to be behind fraudulent schemes, whereby bank transactions calculated to the nearest smallest unit of currency leave unaccounted-for fractions of a unit, for fraudsters to divert into other amounts. Snopes in 2001 dismissed a popular account of such an embezzlement scheme as a legend. +In Los Angeles, in October 1998, district attorneys charged four men with fraud for allegedly installing computer chips in gasoline pumps that cheated consumers by slightly overstating the amounts pumped. The fraud was noticed by consumers who found that they had been charged for volumes of gasoline greater than their cars' gas tank capacities. +In 2008, a man was arrested for fraudulently creating 58,000 accounts which he used to collect money through verification deposits from online brokerage firms, a few cents at a time. +In 1996, a fare box serviceman in Edmonton, Canada, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for stealing coins from the city's transit agency fare boxes. Over 13 years, he stole 37 tonnes of coins, with a face value of nearly CA$2.4 million, using a magnet to lift the coins (made primarily of steel or nickel at the time) out of the fare boxes one at a time. +In Buffalo, New York, a fare box serviceman stole more than US$200,000 in quarters from the local transit agency over an eight-year period stretching from 2003 to 2011 and was sentenced to thirty months in prison. + + +== Geopolitics == + +The first use of salami slicing in politics - and the original Hungarian term (Hungarian: szalámitaktika) - is commonly attributed to Hungarian politician Mátyás Rákosi, who described the actions of the Hungarian Communist Party in its acquisition of power in the Second Hungarian Republic. + + +=== China's salami slice strategy === + +In 2021, the European Parliamentary Research Service accused China of using the salami slice strategy to gradually increase its presence in The South China Sea. Examples of this strategy are the Spratley Islands dispute, the Scarborough Shoal standoff, and more broadly China's Nine-dash line claims over virtually the whole entire South China Sea. China repeatedly uses its coast guard and merchant fishing vessels as a paramilitary fleet to intimidate its neighbors, often referred to as grey zone tactics. +China's salami slicing actions provoked wide international condemnation, especially in regards to its island neighbor. China claims Taiwan as part of its sovereign territory via the One-China Policy. In January 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping essentially said he would use military force to reunify with Taiwan if he had to. In August 2022, then US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan, which further escalated international tensions following the COVID-19 pandemic. Shortly after her visit in 2022, then US President Joe Biden effectively stated America would go to war with China should they attempt a Taiwan invasion. In 2024, the Chinese military flew near Taiwanese airspace over 3,000 times, an increase from the roughly 1,700 flights in 2022 and 2023. During the second presidency of Donald Trump, the US seemingly walked back claims of war over Taiwan, and appeared to pursue the method of strategic ambiguity on the matter. + + +== Scientific misconduct == +Scientists are often evaluated by a number of papers published and similar criteria. In this context, salami slicing refers to "fragmenting single coherent bodies of research into as many publications as possible". If the fragment is too small it may be too hard to publish, so this includes forming minimal publishable items. It can be harder to collect, digest, understand and evaluate the research when scattered in a number of sources. It also leads to repetitive descriptions of context, bibliography lists and so on. Regarding that it is costly to scientific dissemination process, it is often considered a bad practice or even unethical. Some authors managed to divide research to extreme proportions. Salami slicing "can result in a distortion of the literature by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (i.e., journal article) is derived from a different subject sample". +Salami slicing is considered a type of scientific misconduct. + + +== Cultural references == + + +=== Film === +In the 2016 film Arrival, Agent Halpern mentions a Hungarian word meaning to eliminate your enemies one by one. It is thought that this alludes to szalámitaktika. +Salami slicing has played a key role in the plots of several films, including Hackers, Superman III, and Office Space. + + +=== Television === +In a 1972 episode of the TV series M*A*S*H, Radar attempts to ship an entire Jeep home from Korea one piece at a time. Hawkeye commented that his mailman "would have a retroactive hernia" if he found out. +In a 1986 episode of Yes, Prime Minister, "The Grand Design", the government's chief scientific adviser walks Prime Minister Hacker through how salami tactics work and would prevent the prime minister from using nuclear weapons. + + +=== Music === +Johnny Cash's "One Piece at a Time" has a similar plot to the aforementioned M*A*S*H episode, but with a Cadillac made up of parts spanning model years 1949 through 1973. + + +== See also == +Creeping normality +Death by a thousand cuts +Defeat in detail +Gradualism +Goodhart's law +Slippery slope +Structuring +Deterrence theory + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_plagiarism_in_Germany-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_plagiarism_in_Germany-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f37dc9eb7 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_plagiarism_in_Germany-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific plagiarism in Germany" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_plagiarism_in_Germany" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:35.380148+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Scientific plagiarism in Germany became widely discussed during the Guttenberg plagiarism scandal, which has led to other, mostly doctoral, dissertations being scrutinised. Initially focused on the dissertations of notable persons submitted at German institutions, non-doctoral works in languages other than German submitted at institutions outside Germany have since also been scrutinised. +This scrutiny has found extensive plagiarism in the work of several notable persons, including cabinet members, and in a significant number of cases – but not all – their academic degree has been rescinded. As of 2024, the German VroniPlag Wiki has, since it started in 2011, published the plagiarism found in over 200 works; in at least 90 of these cases the academic degree was rescinded. Each year, about 30,000 doctorates are completed in Germany. +However, academic misconduct has been a topic in Germany for centuries, especially at the doctoral level since one of the rights and privileges that come with an academic degree at this level is the title of doctor. In Germany, this title has been regarded since the 16th century "almost equal to a noble title." While the legal privileges of royalty and nobility were abolished in Germany in 1919 following the German revolution and proclamation of the republic at the end of World War I, hereditary titles continue to form part of surnames that continue to be protected by law, the wealth and power of formerly royal and noble families has remained, and German media continues to treat royal and noble persons is if it had never been abolished. Therefore obtaining the title of doctor equates to a significant rise in social status in Germany and thus motivation for doing so, with the achievement itself seemingly less important than the title. When accusations of plagiarism first emerged, Guttenberg volunteered to stop using the title, and when the doctorate was rescinded leading to loss of privilege to use the title, German media focused on the loss of title rather than the academic degree as a recognition of effort and achievement. + + +== Notable cases == + + +== See also == +Scientific misconduct + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_on_the_Responsible_Conduct_of_Research-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_on_the_Responsible_Conduct_of_Research-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..38a42e7c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_on_the_Responsible_Conduct_of_Research-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +--- +title: "Secretariat on the Responsible Conduct of Research" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_on_the_Responsible_Conduct_of_Research" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:36.546551+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The Secretariat on the Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR) is an agency of Canada's federal government that provides ethical oversight in scientific research. The agency was established in 2011 and contains two volunteer panels. It is the successor to a research integrity group established in 1994 and adopted its framework. As of 2019, it has investigated 274 cases, which has resulted in 133 researchers being disciplined for academic misconduct. The organization determines consequences such as funding bans. It mostly relies on affiliated universities to report suspected violations and to do their own internal investigations. Formal complaints are not required for the organization to get involved. The organization has limited transparency and does not release information about the cases it investigates, even where there is police involvement, due to privacy implications. In 2024, when researching the Prince Albert School Study, scientist Janice Parente was told by the organization that it does not oversee privately funded research, which accounts for 85% of research conducted in Canada, and that these research subjects should instead seek recourse through the court system. + + +== See also == +Education in Canada +United States Office of Research Integrity + + +== References == + + +== External links == +Official website \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-0.md index 72c206984..35b26ef23 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/5 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:46:03.309305+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:37.756794+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-1.md index dec09ead6..114970c2b 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-1.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/5 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:46:03.309305+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:37.756794+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-2.md index 03ea5300a..1ba298461 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-2.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-2.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/5 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:46:03.309305+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:37.756794+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-3.md index 2139e203c..a42572f48 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-3.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-3.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/5 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:46:03.309305+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:37.756794+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-4.md index 04143c3f3..04835f1b2 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-4.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism-4.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 5/5 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:46:03.309305+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:37.756794+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..daecd66e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +--- +title: "The Letter Of Roger Bacon Concerning The Marvelous Power Of Art And Nature And The Nullity Of Magic" +chunk: 1/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:39.069704+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The Letter Of Roger Bacon Concerning The Marvelous Power Of Art And Nature And The Nullity Of Magic (Latin: Epistola fratris Rogerii Baconis de secretis operibus artis et naturae, et de nullitate magiae) is a work on the technical applications of natural phenomena and speculative designs for future mechanisms. According to Simon Singh, it is the first European book that systematically outlines the principles of cryptography. Most scholars attribute the authorship to Franciscan monk Roger Bacon, an English philosopher and natural scientist of the mid-13th century. +The Letter is the concluding work in a series by Roger Bacon aimed at compiling contemporary mathematical, physical, and linguistic knowledge, while establishing clear distinctions between magic, religion, and what later became technical and humanistic sciences. The Letter also includes reflections on the education and moral qualities of the clergy. Some of Bacon's philosophical and theological positions were deemed heretical by the Catholic Church, leading to his imprisonment. However, there is no definitive evidence that the Letter directly contributed to his incarceration. + +== History of creation == + +Around 1257, Bacon joined the Franciscan Order, hoping for support in his scientific pursuits. Instead, he faced restrictions from senior members of the order, who, from 1257 to 1267, prohibited him from publishing books due to suspicions of engaging in black arts or witchcraft, as evidenced by Bacon's letters to the Pope, which yielded no results. While in Paris, Bacon sought support from Cardinal Guy de Foulques, requesting financial and ideological backing for his work. The cardinal expressed interest in reviewing Bacon's writings, but at that time, Bacon had no completed works on church or educational reform. No records indicate progress on these works in the following years. +In February 1265, Guy de Foulques became Pope Clement IV, and Bacon renewed his appeal, sending a letter through William Bonecor. On June 22, 1266, Bacon received a response in which the Pope reiterated his request for Bacon's writings and urged him to reveal to us your remedies for the important issues you recently brought to our attention, as quickly and confidentially as possible. The works were to be sent immediately and in secret from the Franciscan Order. The Pope expected Bacon to provide a plan for reforming education and clerical life. Bacon wrote that the Pope was mistaken in thinking the work was already written, adding that nothing worthy of His Holiness had been created, and everything had to begin anew. +Bacon attempted to create a series of books systematizing various fields of knowledge. However, after working on General Mathematics and Laws of Nature, he deemed the project unfeasible and focused on four works: Opus Majus, Opus Secundum, Opus Minus, Opus Tertium, Compendium Studii Philosophiae, and the Letter Of Roger Bacon Concerning The Marvelous Power Of Art And Nature And The Nullity Of Magic (1267). Opinions on the dating of the Letter vary: some researchers, like Colonel Hime, date it to 1248, while others, based on changes in Bacon's philosophical and scientific views in the 1240s–1250s, dismiss this as implausible. A comprehensive source, Biographia Britannica, suggests, based on specific phrases, that most of the work was written in the years leading up to 1267, with the final two chapters added later. +Ultimately, Bacon compiled a collection of works providing a concise overview of various sciences, from the rationale for studying linguistics and mathematics to practical guides for their foundations. The Letter specifically aimed to distinguish low-class magic, as understood at the time, from science. The overarching goal, as envisioned by the Pope, was to elevate the authority of exact sciences among the clergy and encourage their in-depth study in universities and missionary circles. +By the time Bacon completed his work, Clement IV had died, and in 1278, Bacon was arrested by the Franciscan Order's general, Girolamo Masci d'Ascoli (later Pope Nicholas IV), and imprisoned for heresy, specifically for criticizing the clergy's ignorance, accusing Church members of failing to uphold Christian dogmas, and freely interpreting Christian doctrine. Historians estimate his imprisonment lasted between 2 and 14 years. However, American researcher Singer argues that Bacon's works were neither anti-religious nor corrupting to Christian faith, suggesting personal animosity within the Franciscan Order toward Bacon. Scholars note Bacon's fearless critique of the clergy, cardinals, the Pope, Franciscans, Dominicans, and the Vulgate, as well as inaccuracies in the works of Aristotle and Church scholars, which likely earned him many enemies. His interest in alchemy and astrology further discredited his work, delaying recognition of his discoveries until centuries later. The first complete edition of his works appeared in 1897. +According to the English Cyclopaedia, the original text of Bacon's works was significantly altered by Bacon himself after his accusation and arrest. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1f44bd433 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +--- +title: "The Letter Of Roger Bacon Concerning The Marvelous Power Of Art And Nature And The Nullity Of Magic" +chunk: 2/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:39.069704+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +== Content of the book == +In a brief preface, Bacon expresses admiration for the power of nature, stating that only the art of harnessing nature surpasses it. +The opening section, "Against the False Invocation of Spirits", comprises two chapters. The first debunks ventriloquists and tricksters who pass off sleight of hand, mechanical, or optical instruments as miracles, or mimic animal voices. It reveals the secret behind telekinesis tricks performed at dusk or night, using light and shadow. The second chapter refutes the reality of spiritualist séances from a philosophical perspective, arguing that spirits either will not interact with humans or will not aid in base pursuits due to the inferiority of human power compared to spirits. +The section "On Songs, Signs, and Their Uses" includes six chapters exposing various forms of divination, predictions, and charms. In "Symbols, Signs, and Magical Rituals," Bacon rejects the supernatural power of mysterious signs in sages' books, suggesting they are encrypted descriptions of natural laws meant to remain secret. He considers only fools attribute magical power to obscure formulas. "Some Affairs of Church Authorities" criticizes clergy engaging in divination with holy water or heated iron, particularly to determine guilt in cases of adultery or murder. In "Magical Books," Bacon advocates destroying books falsely attributed to renowned sages due to their deceitful content and poor style, supporting the Church's stance on works supposedly by King Solomon. "Magic of Numbers" dismisses sciences based on the magical power of numbers, criticizing those who assign sacred meaning to digits outside a scientific context. "Magic of the Stars" addresses astrology, noting that few works on celestial motion are reliable due to their authors' lack of mathematical knowledge. Finally, "Charms in Medical Practice" cites Avicenna to argue that words or signs uttered by physicians are not supernatural but can inspire hope and confidence in patients, indirectly aiding recovery. +The section "Nullity of Magic" discusses natural mechanisms Bacon deems true miracles. "Species, Ideas, or External Qualities of Things" lists wonders from animal and plant life considered scientific facts at the time, such as a wolf silencing a human if seen first or women with four pupils killing with a glance, supported by references to Ovid, Aristotle, and others. "Power of Personality" explores how human thoughts and emotions influence the material world, spreading health or disease, emphasizing Christian self-improvement. "Power of the Word" contrasts the divine power of wise words with the ineffectiveness of magical incantations, suggesting vocal vibrations carry a "spiritual warmth" affecting objects and people. Bacon concludes the first half of the book by asserting that the actions of pseudo-magical books, false scholars, and fraudulent sorcerers are trivial compared to the capabilities of nature wielded by a healthy, divinely inspired person. +The second part of the book begins with "On the Wondrous Art of Instruments", a single chapter, "Mechanical Devices," where Bacon envisions ships controlled by one person, high-speed vehicles, aircraft, devices for safe underwater movement, and early mentions of submarines. He predicts devices for flight with artificial wings, lifting heavy objects, and self-propelled chariots. +The section "On the Wondrous Art of Perspective" covers optics. "Magical Mirrors" describes mirror systems creating illusions of armies or vast spaces on small devices. "Optical Devices with Various Focuses" discusses tools for magnifying objects close-up or at a distance, burning objects with focused light, and reflecting the heavens in miniature. +The section "On Wondrous Experiments" focuses on chemistry. "Combustible Compositions" explores eternal lamps and warm baths using amber and niter. "Gunpowder" describes its explosive potential and includes an anagram, "Luru Vopo Vir Can Utriet," encoding its formula. "Working Model of the Heavens" discusses Ptolemy's model for predicting celestial events. "Alloying Gold" speculates on synthesizing pure gold. +The section "On Delaying Old Age and Prolonging Human Life" explores longevity. "Lifespan" cites cases of extended life using oils, stones, and animal parts. "Healthcare" advocates balanced living to preserve health, attributing declining lifespans to accumulated sins. +The section "On Concealing the Secrets of Nature and Art" addresses cryptography. "Wisdom of Keeping Secrets" emphasizes protecting natural laws from misuse. "Ignorance of the Masses" argues that the uneducated misinterpret knowledge. "Seven Ways to Conceal a Secret" lists seven encryption methods. +The final section, "On Creating the Philosophical Egg", describes three methods for preparing the philosophical egg, a symbol of primary matter in alchemy, through processes like sublimation and oxidation. + +== Authorship of the final chapters == +The authorship of chapters 7–11 has been questioned by British researcher Charles Fontaine, due to chronological inconsistencies, such as references to questions asked in 601 (1205–1206 CE) and 608 (1212–1213 CE) of the Islamic calendar, predating Bacon's birth. Some editions correct these to 621 or 688. Romocki suggests scribal errors, proposing 661 (1257 CE) and 668 (1265–1266 CE), aligning with Bacon's reference in Opus Tertium to a letter sent ten years earlier. + +== Manuscripts, publications, and translations == + +=== Manuscripts === +According to James Partington, the original manuscript survives only partially in Oxford Tanner 116, covering chapters 1–5 and part of 6. The full text was compiled in the 15th century in Sloane MS. 2156. Other manuscripts include Oxford Digby 164 (15th century, chapters 1–9) and Voss MS. at Leiden (16th century). + +=== Editions and translations === + +==== In Latin ==== +The first printed edition appeared in 1542 by Oronce Finé. A 1594 Oxford edition was edited by Joseph Barnes. In 1618, Hamburg published an edition with notes by John Dee. + +==== In English ==== +The first English translation, An Excellent Discourse of the Admirable Force and Efficacie of Art and Nature, by Frier Bacon, was published in 1597 in Oxford. In 1659, "Frier Bacon his Discovery of the Miracles of Art, Nature and Magic" appeared. A 1923 Easton translation by Tenney L. Davis included commentary. + +==== In French ==== +The first French edition, De L'admirable Povvoir et Pvissance de l'art, et de nature, was published in Lyon in 1557. A 1893 Paris edition by A. Poisson followed. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bb9544aec --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +--- +title: "The Letter Of Roger Bacon Concerning The Marvelous Power Of Art And Nature And The Nullity Of Magic" +chunk: 3/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_Of_Roger_Bacon_Concerning_The_Marvelous_Power_Of_Art_And_Nature_And_The_Nullity_Of_Magic" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:39.069704+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +==== In German ==== +A 1613 Basel edition and a 1750 Vienna edition appeared, followed by a 1776 translation by Hamberger. + +==== In Russian ==== +In 2005, Moscow published a translation of Opus Majus and the first eight chapters of the Letter, edited by Ivan Lupandin. + +== Relevance of the book == + +The Letter has captivated researchers for eight centuries due to its harmonious coexistence of magic and science. It connects Bacon's works on mathematics, natural science, philosophy, and theology, establishing hierarchies and parallels, embodying the medieval struggle between magic, science, and religion. Historian John Rose names Bacon among the six greatest figures in history as a philosopher, theologian, scientist, and writer. However, early 21st-century scholars view Bacon's scientific contributions as limited due to their fragmentary nature. +The book's historical and scientific relevance lies in its empirical facts and philosophical reflections, including Bacon's concept of spiritual experience or intuition as part of scientific discovery, a precursor to heuristics and intuition in science. + +The chapter "On the Wondrous Art of Instruments" anticipates Leonardo da Vinci's designs, predicting submarines, scuba gear, cars, and jacks. Bacon's famous quote, "Of the three ways by which people suppose they acquire knowledge of things—authority, reasoning, and experience — only the last can bring order to the mind", reflects his emphasis on empiricism. +Theses from Opus Majus on shipbuilding and navigation from Spain to India inspired Christopher Columbus, influencing his letter to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, contributing to the discovery of the Americas. +The 1914 University of California publication and Tenney L. Davis's 1923 work detail Bacon's evolving views from empiricism to intuition, his complex relationship with the Church, and aspects of his personality. + +== Description of gunpowder in the Letter == + +According to James Partington, the most famous part of the Letter is the gunpowder formula in chapter 11. Brewer summarize it as a mix from saltpeter LURU VOPO VIR CAN UTRIET sulfur, that will make thunder and lightning, if a man knows the art. +A scholar Hime rearranged the anagram to RVIIPARTVNOUCORUVLET, interpreting it as a recipe VII PARTes, V NOVellae CORULi, V ET sulphuris, translating as an instruction of taking 7 parts saltpeter, 5 parts young charcoal, and 5 parts sulfur. Davis suggests using 6 parts saltpeter for consistency with earlier statements. +Clement interprets some letters differently, proposing "pulveris carbonum tritorum" (ground charcoal) Steele notes the 1542 edition by Oronce Finé struggled with illegible manuscript symbols. +Partington suggests Bacon may have drawn gunpowder knowledge from Arabic sources. + +== The Letter as the first European book on cryptography == + +The section "On Concealing the Secrets of Nature and Art" is significant as the first European written source on cryptography. It outlines seven encryption methods, including symbol substitution, figurative expressions, consonant-only writing, mixed alphabets, invented scripts, pictographic alphabets with hidden markers, and text abbreviation. Bacon's cryptography influenced speculation about his authorship of the Voynich Manuscript, though this was disproven by radiocarbon dating. + +== Interpretation of Bacon's ideas in the 19th–20th centuries == +In the 19th century, Bacon was seen as a visionary experimenter, as per Betham. Later research showed many of his facts were known earlier, and medieval Christians were not broadly anti-science, diminishing his scientific significance. His intuitive approach echoed Robert Grosseteste's verification methods. Bacon's call for reform, per Vinogradov and Power, was an apocalyptic appeal to the Pope to improve missionary training against the Antichrist. +Edmund Brehm compared Bacon's alchemical views to Tantric yoga, suggesting alchemy was a path to longevity and spiritual liberation, akin to Madhva's teachings. Bacon's work bridged ancient alchemical traditions and the 14th-century European hermetic revival. + +== Notes == + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Research_Integrity-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Research_Integrity-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9039431af --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Research_Integrity-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +title: "United States Office of Research Integrity" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Research_Integrity" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:40.315191+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is a U.S. government agency that focuses on research integrity, especially in health. It was created when the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Office of Scientific Integrity Review (OSIR) in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health merged in May 1992. The Office of Research Integrity oversees and directs Public Health Service (PHS) research integrity activities on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, except for the regulatory research integrity activities of the Food and Drug Administration. Organizationally, ORI is located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) within the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (OS), in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). + + +== Activities == +ORI carries out its responsibility by: + +Developing policies, procedures and regulations related to the detection, investigation, and prevention of research misconduct and the responsible conduct of research; +Reviewing and monitoring research misconduct investigations conducted by applicant and awardee institutions, intramural research programs, and the Office of Inspector General in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); +Recommending research misconduct findings and administrative actions to the Assistant Secretary for Health for decision, subject to appeal; +Assisting the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to present cases before the HHS Departmental Appeals Board; +Providing technical assistance to institutions that respond to allegations of research misconduct; +Implementing activities and programs to teach the responsible conduct of research, promote research integrity, prevent research misconduct, and improve the handling of allegations of research misconduct; +Conducting policy analyses, evaluations and research to build the knowledge base in research misconduct, research integrity, and prevention and to improve HHS research integrity policies and procedures; +Administering programs for: maintaining institutional assurances, responding to allegations of retaliation against whistleblowers, approving intramural and extramural policies and procedures, and responding to Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act of 1974 requests. +In FY 2004, the PHS provided at least $30 billion for health research and development, primarily in the biomedical and behavioral sciences through its extramural and intramural programs. (Extramural programs provide funding to research institutions that are not part of the Federal government of the United States - medical schools, universities, colleges, hospitals, research institutes. Intramural programs provide funding for research conducted within Federal government facilities.) + + +== Scientific fraud hearings of late 1980s-early 1990s == +The Office of Scientific Integrity conducted a number of investigations of scientists and researchers in the late 1980s-early 1990s; the result of concerns about scientific misconduct in the early 1980s. This also caught the attention of John Dingell, at the time a high-ranking member of the United States House of Representatives; culminating in a "Scientific McCarthyism" against perceived cases of fraud. After new NIH head Bernadine Healy was questioned in these hearings, a review process was created to improve due process for the accused. Canadian journalist Malcolm Gladwell, at the time a reporter for The Washington Post, revisited the news coverage and propriety of the investigations in 2018, via two episodes of Season 3 of the Revisionist History podcast. + + +== See also == +EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles, including a publication ethics checklist for authors (for routine use during manuscript submission to a journal) +David Baltimore and Thereza Imanishi-Kari: prominent researchers targeted in the OSI/Dingell hearings, cleared later in the 1990s. +Secretariat on the Responsible Conduct of Research, Canada + + +== References == + + +== External links == +Office of Research Integrity Homepage \ No newline at end of file