Is This a Problem or a Grift?
A new way to identify "bad" papers seems to argue against its need to exist
Everything is relative, I guess. Your coffee beans aren’t entirely coffee bean — as much as 4-6% of beans by count are allowed to be insect-infested or moldy according to FDA guidance. From paprika to peanut butter to pizza sauce, contamination level allowances are sometimes surprising, until you realize that rats and insects are wily opponents.
Overall, the rate of problems in the scientific literature is surprisingly low. Estimates that spring to mind from years of hearing about studies of it pegs it at about 1% of papers, with some estimates putting it far lower if retractions are the signal.
A new tool called Argos is boasting it can detect risky papers based on two main factors — if the authors are sketchy, and if their citations are sketchy.
Argos by a company called Scintility (a portmanteau of “science” and “utility” which comes closer to parsing as “senility” if I’m being honest), which is run out of a house in Sparks, NV. The address for Scintility appears to be this residence:
The Scintility team — which comprises the entire staff of three as identified on LinkedIn — has many ties to Springer Nature, so it’s a little cozy to find coverage of this in Nature, but we’ll put a pin in that. It’s also interesting to note that these are serial entrepreneurs who seem to take the money and run — leaving a company when it gets too big, or when there is a “liquidity event.” OA has a side-grift economy all its own . . .