Decontaminate science – Quebec Science

You may have already heard this injunction which plays the world of research: “publish. Similarly, perish”. Furthermore, To set up a laboratory. For example, obtain funding, attract student workforce, scientists must publish their research results in learned journals as often as possible. For example, The more articles accepted in prestigious newspapers, the more they are recognized by the community. Nevertheless, Each day, 15,000 new scientific articles are published worldwide!

This knowledge sharing is the basis of the functioning of science. However, But he took a perverse turning point: the pressure to the publication is such that it pushes certain unscrupulous scientists to submit to the valuation of poor quality studies. For example, even to plagiarize or to falsify data. Moreover, As a result. In addition, the number of “retracted” articles, that is to say invalidated after their publication due to fraud, inaccuracy or decontaminate science – quebec science errors (sometimes in good faith, let us specify), reaches heights. In addition, In 2023. Consequently, more than 10,000 articles were thus “striking” in scientific literature – not without having been read and cited by others in the meantime. Consequently, And not without staying available online… even if fraudulent items are minority. some are influential; And all contribute to discrediting research and giving ammunition to anti-science movements.

This pollution may be denounced for years, it continues to grow. This is partly explained by the development of companies specializing in fraud, boosted by artificial intelligence. Called items (paper millsin English), they sell completely fake search articles, but turnkey. We pay to affix his name and thus lengthen his CV. The practice is very popular in China, Russia, India and Iran, where the teams are particularly extensive to publish.

The multiplication of so -called predatory journals. which accept any study with publication costs, decontaminate science – quebec science also contributes to the industrialization of the phenomenon. See instead: the number of newspapers is constantly increasing (more than 5 % per year). much faster than the number of volunteer scientists who evaluate studies, require corrections and validate them (what is called peer revision). Thus, even the journals of the largest publishing houses, like Elsevier, house hundreds of dubious articles.

But the response is organized. If the withdrawals are more. more numerous, it is also because some vigilantes and justice of science have given themselves mission to track down invented data, manipulated images, duplicate curves, false references … These “detectives”. as they and they designate, scrutinize the articles already published – in particular on the Pubpeer platform, which combines more than 300,000 anonymous comments. In short, it is an unofficial revision by peers, after the acceptance of the study by the journal …

A year ago, around fifty leaders in decontaminate science – quebec science the field gathered in Paris during a symposium entitled “Decontamination of scientific literature”. This meeting led to the posting. in June 2025, of 27 practical guides – the Collection of Open Science Integrity Guides – to help volunteers who want to assess the reliability of publications. We learn in particular to detect duplicated images. to identify the plagiarized texts, to verify the statistical calculations or to point out an ethics or integrity problem to an editor. The goal: that all scientists feel capable of investigating and reporting breaches.

This initiative is part of a broader movement which aims to rethink the entire scholarly publication system (an annual. market of more than $ 30 billion!). In the meantime, the vigilance of detectives is crucial. It does not only allow hunting for problematic articles. It helps to contextualize research and reconnects with the founding principle of science: autocorrection. Indeed. it is by criticizing the decontaminate science – quebec science results of other teams – and also by responding experiences – that knowledge is correct and consolidate.

However. to use the words of the professor specializing in the automatic detection of Guillaume Cabanac fraud, quoted in Cnrs the newspaper : “Science is built, like the wall of a house, with bricks. The use of unreliable, even rotten – elements – reused by the scientific community – could ultimately threaten the building! Masonry work is pressing.