What is contradictory in a claim that most research is low impact thus easier to fake while the incentives for publishing high impact research skews to publishing bad/fake papers since publishing is far more important then having a paper retracted?
> Not deeply, but I surely can come up with bio/med research with real life applications that appeared in last 2-3 decades. Say mRNA vaccines?
Ok, not contradictory, it is just two claims unrelated both between themselves and to my original claim.
Yes, low impact research is easy to fake.
Yes, there is incentive to publish fake high-impact papers.
Yes, it is hard to create and publish fake high-impact impact research.
What is contradictory in a claim that most research is low impact thus easier to fake while the incentives for publishing high impact research skews to publishing bad/fake papers since publishing is far more important then having a paper retracted?
> Not deeply, but I surely can come up with bio/med research with real life applications that appeared in last 2-3 decades. Say mRNA vaccines?
Nobody said that all research is faked.