re: NASA scientist claims discovery of “new force” that counteracts gravity with no fuel

I see a bunch of posters calling him a nutter but would he be able to keep his job at NASA as the Lead Electrostatics Scientist if he went off the rails a decade ago?

[

Hindawi (Wiley subsidiary): In 2023, the publisher retracted over 8,000 articles after discovering they were generated by paper mills—operations that fabricate papers (often with plagiarized or AI-assisted content) and manipulate peer review via fake reviewer accounts, stolen identities, or sham positive reports. This overwhelmed the review system and led to the shutdown of several journals. Similar issues affected other Wiley titles, prompting major integrity investments.

Frontiers journals (July 2025): Frontiers retracted 122 articles across 5 journals after its Research Integrity team uncovered a network of ~35 authors and editors engaged in peer review manipulation. The scheme involved undisclosed conflicts of interest (e.g., authors/editors reviewing each other’s work) and citation manipulation. The network had published over 4,000 papers across seven other publishers, which Frontiers shared for further scrutiny. Retractions were completed by early August 2025.

PLOS ONE (analyzed in 2025 study): A detailed investigation of this megajournal flagged 33 editors who handled retracted or heavily criticized papers at rates far higher than expected by chance. One editor alone oversaw 79 papers, 49 of which were later retracted. These editors (just 0.25% of all PLOS ONE editors) managed ~30% of all retractions despite handling only 1.3% of total papers. Patterns suggested collusion, such as editors handling each other’s submissions. Similar anomalies were found in 10 Hindawi journals.

Broader fake peer review rings: Publishers like Springer, Elsevier, and others have continued retracting papers for fabricated reviewer reports (e.g., authors suggesting fake emails that route to confederates). These cases often involve paper mills guaranteeing “acceptance” via manipulated reviews. Retractions linked to such issues have hit record highs, exceeding 10,000 per year in some recent tallies.

Ideological bias allegations at Nature Portfolio (2025): Prominent USC chemist Anna Krylov publicly severed all ties with Nature journals (as author and peer reviewer) in October 2025. She cited the publisher’s shift toward a “social justice agenda” (DEI-focused policies) that she argued sacrificed merit and objectivity. Specific concerns included editorial pushes for “citation justice” (prioritizing citations by identity group over scientific relevance) and diversity statements in submissions, which she viewed as ideological litmus tests incompatible with rigorous peer review. This echoed earlier criticisms, such as Nature’s partisan political endorsements and pressures on authors to align with certain narratives.

Retractions overall have surged, with fraud outpacing legitimate growth. Publishers are now deploying AI tools to detect paper mill products and manipulated reviews, but the problem remains acute in high-pressure fields like biomedicine.

It’s obvious modern science is missing something big when it comes to gravity. Otherwise they wouldn’t have to make up shite they can’t prove like dark matter and dark energy to explain observations that don’t jive with modern physics. .

quote:

---

I'm trying to get one of you trust the science bros to "fathom" that there are legitimate reasons to question the peer review process that isn't only about the legitimacy of the person with the doubts.

---

Ah, I see. You're knighting for a SCIENTIST who refuses to show his work because he doesn't (and you don't) trust SCIENCE. Got it. Think it's clear now. No need for more discussion.

I remember the last time a professor figured this out.