Skip to content

Science Publisher Retracts 44 Papers for Being Utter Nonsense

November 8, 2021

By Paul Homewood

So much for the “Science”!



The publisher Springer Nature was forced to retract over 40 papers from its Arabian Journal of Geosciences after realizing they were nothing more than garbled jargon. This is just the latest in a series of shoddy research papers getting past the publisher.

First reported by research journal watchdog Retraction Watch, the slew of retractions comes on the heels of other issues at the publisher, where hundreds of papers were previously flagged with “expressions of concern” for research integrity breaches.

The retraction notice on one of papers reads as follows: “The Editor-in-Chief and the Publisher have retracted this article because the content of this article is nonsensical. The peer review process was not carried out in accordance with the Publisher’s peer review policy. The author has not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.”

The journal is intended for geoscience research; discussion of volcanoes, soils, and rocks are par for the course. But these questionable papers’ topics were further afield, with many discussing sports, air pollution, child medicine, and combinations of the aforesaid.

Some titles of the farkakte research: “Simulation of sea surface temperature based on non-sampling error and psychological intervention of music education”; “Distribution of earthquake activity in mountain area based on embedded system and physical fitness detection of basketball”; “The stability of rainfall conditions based on sensor networks and the effect of psychological intervention for patients with urban anxiety disorder.” A complete list of the retracted papers can be found here.

Chris Graf, the research integrity director for Springer Nature, told Retraction Watch that “As previously stated, we are developing new AI and other-tech based tools and putting additional checks in place to identify and prevent attempts of deliberate manipulation.”

“Moreover, we are gathering evidence into how these subversions are being carried out to share with other publishers, [the Committee on Publication Ethics], relevant institutions and other agencies to help inform the development of industry-wide practices and ensure that culpable parties can be held to account,” Graf added.

Whether such measures are effective or not remains to be seen. Based on the previous issues seen at this and many other journals, there’s not much reason to be hopeful.

  1. Gerry, England permalink
    November 8, 2021 10:09 am

    So much for the climate alarmists great faith in ‘peer review’ although in most cases they practice ‘pal review’ by having those profiting from the global warming scam do the review.

    • November 8, 2021 10:51 am

      ‘Peer Review’ – Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet.

      “Peer review to the public is portrayed as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller, but we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong”

      • Jack Broughton permalink
        November 8, 2021 12:58 pm

        He should know: their climate junk is clearly well pal-reviewed.

      • John Winward permalink
        November 9, 2021 7:56 am

        To be fair, Horton is an expert on publishing stuff that is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

      • devonblueboy permalink
        November 9, 2021 8:18 am

        Horse and mouth?!

      • November 9, 2021 11:35 am


  2. Andrew Harding permalink
    November 8, 2021 10:22 am

    I think the term “nonsensical” is applicable to any “scientific” paper that claims that an increase in an innocuous gas from 3 to 4 molecules is going to result in Armageddon!

    • November 8, 2021 10:44 pm

      CO2 is not a pollutant, greens and extends the planet’s vegetation and is needed for photosynthesis. Unlike the sun, water vapour and cloud cover iIt is not the main controller of the Earth’s temperature. It’s impact in that is small.

  3. Post BREXIT permalink
    November 8, 2021 10:39 am

    GB News is currently ’employing’ a University academic to give his thoughts on a daily basis on COP26. A viewer emailed in yesterday to ask about the ‘evidence’ to support his, and other eco-loons, protestations ‘we’re all doomed unless action is taken immediately………”
    His flustered answer was the myriad of scientific papers that have been peer reviewed and therefore must mean man-made CC is real and we are in a ‘Climate Emergency’.

    • Gamecock permalink
      November 8, 2021 11:40 am

      Argumentum ab auctoritate.

    • November 8, 2021 12:01 pm

      No serious paper has ever used the term “climate emergency.”

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      November 8, 2021 5:36 pm

      The man in question is from my old alma mater Bangor University so I looked him up. He is Dr Christian Dunn a Senior Lecturer in Zoology (so he studies “impacts” on wetlands). Much of his defence of climate science is “worlds greatest experts” (cough!) and “the rest is just physics” (I suggest he reads Koonin’s book). I realised he was a complete lightweight on the actual science. On his Bangor Uni. official page he also mentions formerly being a journalist (writing for BBC Wildlife magazine…) and an environmental activist. So a good balance of scepticism then.

      I emailed GB News to point out that as I did the Oceanography course (ie with real geophysics) and have been a professional Geophysicist specialising in forward and inverse modelling for 37 some years, I was far more qualified as a “climate scientist” than he was. I went on to send in a question to ask him which was why a climate model run for the Holocene using CO2 and CH4 observations (and orbital effects) predicts warming whilst the Holocene has actually been cooling all that time. (Ziu et al 2014).

      Needless to say I am waiting for the answer. Its been a week. Do you think I should send a reminder?

      • devonblueboy permalink
        November 8, 2021 5:41 pm

        A reminder is certainly due, possibly chiselled onto his forehead?

  4. Mad Mike permalink
    November 8, 2021 10:43 am

    I don’t even understand the titles of these papers and I shouldn’t think I would do any better actually reading them. Presumably someone got research grants for this rubbish.

    • Douglas Dragonfly permalink
      November 8, 2021 11:27 am


    • November 8, 2021 4:51 pm

      In other countries you get pay rises for publishing papers
      So people PAY to get Published… any old crap, plagiarism etc.

      • HotScot permalink
        November 8, 2021 5:48 pm

        Chinese academics are required, under threat of punishment, to produce research papers. They turned to AI to churn them out as they know they get published unread in anything purporting to be a serious journal in the west.

        Richard Horton of the Lancet condemned up to 50% of medical studies as junk based on small sample sizes etc. What he didn’t mention was AI studies that have slipped through.

        I. think we can almost guarantee medical studies, as bad as they are, are by orders of magnitude more. reliable than climate science studies.

  5. Gamecock permalink
    November 8, 2021 11:35 am

    ‘Chris Graf, the research integrity director for Springer Nature, told Retraction Watch that “As previously stated, we are developing new AI and other-tech based tools and putting additional checks in place to identify and prevent attempts of deliberate manipulation.”’

    You know, Chris, you might just read them.

    ‘we are developing new AI and other-tech based tools’ sounds like a bad research paper.

    • November 8, 2021 12:05 pm

      If the editor could not be a***d to read the paper, why do they believe that other scientists are likely to find it interesting? The reviewers clearly didn’t read them either, that’s if the reviewers were real people.

      • ThinkingScientist permalink
        November 8, 2021 5:38 pm

        I think you only needed to read the titles to reject them. It wouldn;t have taken much editorial time.

    • HotScot permalink
      November 8, 2021 5:50 pm

      Considering many studies are concocted by AI, will AI detection methods detect AI generated nonsense, or just accept it as one of its own.

  6. Ray Sanders permalink
    November 8, 2021 12:16 pm

    Well if you really want some top quality “peer reviewed” papers that cover climate change here is a good laugh and well worth a read. N.B. This was a deliberate spoof and it was published in a peer review publication.

    Click to access 23311886.2017.1330439.pdf

  7. Broadlands permalink
    November 8, 2021 1:16 pm

    From the Journal of Irreproducible Results: “Eradication of Poverty in Contemporary America”.

    Conclusion: “Poor people do not have enough money. Given them enough money. They will no longer be poor.” Correlation coefficient 1.00.

    The study was financed in part by Grant no. RD-14-1063-7093…etc.

  8. Rupert Smedley Hepplewhite permalink
    November 8, 2021 1:19 pm

    This just goes to show so much of “science” is BS.

  9. November 8, 2021 1:33 pm

    Only 44?

  10. dearieme permalink
    November 8, 2021 1:55 pm

    “Some titles of the farkakte research …” You got me: woz mean?

    • November 8, 2021 6:10 pm

      Something like covfefe perhaps? Fake?

  11. mothcatcher permalink
    November 8, 2021 2:18 pm

    “As previously stated, we are developing new AI and other-tech based tools and putting additional checks in place to identify and prevent attempts of deliberate manipulation.”

    Perhaps it would be better developing some common sense?

  12. Andy Pickford permalink
    November 8, 2021 2:22 pm

    If only they had added “The effect of climate change on…” to the titles they would have got funding and been published.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      November 8, 2021 5:39 pm

      And not now rejected!

  13. November 8, 2021 2:45 pm

    “developing new AI and other-tech based tools and putting additional checks in place”!! How about the editorial team actually reading the articles & papers. Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do? Wouldn’t those titles be enough to reject them? Sounds like they are trying to pass the buck!

  14. Paul Adams permalink
    November 8, 2021 2:50 pm

    I’m actually debating a Global Warmer that deforestation is bad but increased global greening from co2 fertilization is bad as well, because plants produce co2 now!!!
    Must be a new science?
    This is their logic!!
    Maybe we should ask, and I’m quoting, Climate Genus Al Gore?
    I wonder how long before they throw Greta under the bus?

    • November 8, 2021 4:56 pm

      If plants only take in CO2 from their leaves
      then when you harvest them and they decompose, they can’t release more CO2 than they took in.

      If however there is some mechanism where they absorb CO2 from the soil with their roots, they could be removing CO2 sequestrated in the soil.
      Anyone know if that happens at all ?

      • devonblueboy permalink
        November 8, 2021 5:30 pm

        Please check out the process and result of photosynthesis which will answer your question.

      • November 8, 2021 6:37 pm

        Devonboy No it doesn’t otherwise I wouldn’t have asked.

      • November 8, 2021 7:58 pm

        Forgive me for going back to my A Level Botany to try and be helpful. As I recall plants absorb water, minerals and nutrients from the soil via their roots Carbon dioxide is taken in through the leaves. Chlorophyll is involved in the photosynthesis process that uses light energy to make sugar and oxygen from carbon dioxide and water. The sugar is converted through cellular respiration to ATP, the fuel for growth.
        Judging my my daughter’s GCSE biology texts this is still the situation. There is no mention of plants removing carbon dioxide from the soil. And would carbon dioxide exist in a gaseous state in the soil?

      • November 8, 2021 8:22 pm

        Roots respite normally therefore increase CO2 in the soil atmosphere from 0.04% to 0.25% (1%) in some cases.

      • dave permalink
        November 9, 2021 9:22 am

        “…debating a Global Warmer…”

        For any dynamic system, the descriptive scheme HAS to contain all the significant :

        (a) stocks;

        (b) flows;

        (c) timings and rates.

        Until this modelling has been done – carefully – every apparent “statement” will in fact be ambiguous to the point of being meaningless.

        There is no point in debating ‘the carbon cycle’ with people who have no clue what a quantitative model actually comprises.

        Slightly off-topic. An example of how ridiculous propaganda becomes when the people who are shouting it at the top of their lungs are merely non-technical cheer-leaders, is the following story from Goebbels’ Ministry of Information, planted on January 16, 1944 and disseminated through Stockholm, describing the new German rockets:

        “One compartment contains a charge of eight hundred eighty pounds liquid air and Uranium salt solution, the second holds the four hundred fifty to six hundred fifty pound propulsion charge consisting of coal oxide and picric acid, and the third contains the ignition mechanism believed to comprise radio-active salt solution and quick silver.”

        A few days later the Ministry explained that the purpose of the rockets was to bring about climate change!

        “Such rockets will cause artificial icebergs in the Channel in case the Allies try a suicidal invasion of the mainland of Europe…”

      • devonblueboy permalink
        November 9, 2021 9:38 am

        So it would appear that the climate change and covid cheerleaders are drinking the same kool aid as the Nazis. Such perfect symmetry.

      • November 12, 2021 11:01 pm

        Darn my typo
        ” If however there is some mechanism where they absorb CARBON from the soil with their roots, they could be removing CARBON sequestrated in the soil.”

  15. November 8, 2021 4:40 pm

    £1890.00 is the fee for publication in the journal. Why would they make it hard by reading the drivel first.

  16. November 8, 2021 6:24 pm

    O/T sorry. I’m back! Finally got my stupid Twitter app to work (although I never use Twitter except for logging into places!)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: