Fake Research: How Can We Recognise it and Respond to it?

ABSTRACT

Fake research produces results that are invalid from the start. I take such research to be characterised by three jointly sufficient features. It is severely methodologically defective, and the relevant defects support certain nonepistemic (social, political, economic) interests and objectives, while the relevant objectives typically concern the interference with attempts at political regulation. I deal with two kinds of claimed fake research. One is agnotological ploys in which scientific dissent is created by interested parties from industry or politics in order to support their own partisan goals. Another one is the populist antiscience movement that suspects fake research in the scientific mainstream. I suggest three remedies to reduce or eliminate the impact of fake research: disclosing fallacies, improving the understanding of scientific methods, and distinguishing more clearly between science and politics in political decision-making.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 However, it is also contentious what an appropriate replication is and what are suitable statistical tools for deciding about whether a replication failed (Fletcher 2021).

2 Proctor distinguishes various sorts of ignorance production and not all are deliberate or evil-minded (see Kourany and Carrier 2020). I focus on the core meaning.

3 It is contentious whether the intention to deceive is constitutive of agnotological endeavours. This is true of Proctor’s core notion (see above) and supported by Girel 2023, whereas critics object that intentions are difficult to ascertain and exhibit no close correlation with the detrimental impact of such endeavours (Biddle and Leuschner 2015, 264–265; Carrier 2018, 157–158; Carrier 2020, 65–66; De Melo-Martín 2023).

4 Derksen (1993) lists these two features among his characteristics of pseudo-scientists. Other such features are immunisation of one’s own claims against criticism, restriction of insights to the initiates, and excessive pretentiousness.