Ironically if this paper intentionally uses an incorrect and misleading term "fake", to label and then claim that 1 in 7 are fake, would it make the paper itself "fake" according to their standards?
Because they find 1 in 7 with serious errors, but their definition of "fake" requires it to be intentional. Where's the evidence it's intentional for all of these 1 in 7?
It says "serious errors commensurate with being untrustworthy", which I think is meant to be an alternative way to say commensurate with being fake.
Arguments about intentionality are a bit of a distraction. Academics routinely try and excuse obvious fakery by claiming to be incredibly incompetent. At some point you have to treat unlimited incompetence as harshly as deliberate deception.
Because they find 1 in 7 with serious errors, but their definition of "fake" requires it to be intentional. Where's the evidence it's intentional for all of these 1 in 7?