Comment by MarkusQ
3 days ago
> The reviewers of Science were not and unless proven otherwise Science is a serious publication.
Serious publication or not (which, BTW, is an instance of the Argument from Authority fallacy), they aren't immune to the problem of junk science.[1]
> That's plain racism.
Not the OP, but I believe the intended reading of "Chinese" in this context is "product of the present Chinese social and economic system" and has nothing to do withe race or ethnicity (e.g. it wouldn't apply to Taiwan). The present Chinese system has a significant problem with bad science.[2]
[1] http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx#?jou%3dS...
[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-017-9939-6
"China with 4353 retracted articles out of 2,741,274 documents is the leading nation in breaching scientific integrity."
but I believe the intended reading of "Chinese"
There is no intended reading that makes "Chinese metallurgy is an oxymoron" a sensible thing to post any place where you want to have a halfway reasonable conversation with strangers.
I can't access the PDF from that Springer link - what are the numbers for other countries?
> Serious publication or not (which, BTW, is an instance of the Argument from Authority fallacy), they aren't immune to the problem of junk science.[1]
I'm not sure anyone was saying they're immune to it, but their reputation does lend them credibility when compared to a random HN commenter that says stuff like "Chinese metallurgy is an oxymoron"