The whole thing is just so obscene.

Pouring conceptual, virtual money into virtual funds and then coming out with a bunch of nonsense so it can become more conceptual money.

What value does this add to the world? It's a system by the rich, for the rich, to keep them rich.

Me neither. This is a certain thing that will definitely happen because the world has a fully functional justice system.

Germany and Poland are truly leading the way when it comes to boosting military strength and manufacturing capacity. A unified Europe could be something truly great, and together we have the ability to stand up to Russian aggression.

This sort of thing happened under Boris Johnson's government in the UK. It's common with demagogues - They know that whatever they do, and no matter how badly they blunder, their cultists will still vote for them.

We don't have the EV infrastructure here quite yet for EVs (or the parking arrangements), but we love our Kia hybrid.

As someone watching from the outside, my heart goes out to all the Americans that didn't vote for this. There's some wonderful internal resistance, though. The legal challenges and the resistance of individuals in orgs like the NIH and NSF have been gumming up the works wonderfully.

While Europe is fraying at the edges, the far right is gaining ground, and we still bicker on occasion, I think many of us feel a deep affinity with other Europeans - while language may vary we have a great many shared values. Putin will be surprised at how Europe unifies against external threats.

.mil or .fed.us too, obviously, but those are much more secure and exclusive.

They probably would if you don't have a .gov or .edu email address. There are some services that offer a free .gov domain (Neo being one iirc).

The results of paraphrasing software to get around plagiarism checks is even funnier. There are regular examples of terms like "bosom peril" (breast cancer) and "kidney disappointment" (kidney failure) being red flags for fake papers.

Hopefully this thread is interesting or of use to someone. Unfortunately with everything going on in the US right now I think the scientific literature is going to get worse before it gets better, but I feel, by following a few simple checks, it'll help sort the good from the bad.

There's also an extension for your browser called Pubpeer which when you visit an article will show a banner at the top of the page if that article has been retracted, or has comments from the scientific community attached to it.

pubpeer.com/static/exten...

Copy pasting the article title into Google scholar (or just plain old Google) may well give you any associated retractions or expressions of concern, but Retraction Watch retractionwatch.com/retraction-w... is even better.

3.Retractions -
Occasionally a bad article will (accidentally or otherwise) slip through the peer review system of an otherwise good journal. This will often get spotted by the research community who will write letters of concern, often (but not always) resulting in the bad article being retracted.

If in doubt, just Google the publisher. The big publishing houses such as Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, Springer Nature and Sage (the "big 5") are usually a sign of reputability but bear in mind they're not perfect, considering the final point:

Web of Science is a great tool to check if a journal is reputable, but most people don't have an institutional login. For most, your best bet is Scimago to check how highly cited a journal is, or professional bodies like ALPSP and COPE that list members that ascribe to their code of ethics.

2.Disreputable journals -
Particularly in the era of Open Access it's easy to get something published in certain dodgy journals that accept a fee for article publication, or with journals that have a political agenda.