Science Manipulations: Myths and Truths
When people hear about the messier side of science — citation games, vanity journals, unusual networks — they often push back (still). Not necessarily because they don’t believe, but because they don’t want to believe how vulnerable the science ecosystem is to manipulation. It’s easier to assume this stuff is rare, irrelevant, or someone else’s problem.
But if we want to defend science, not just the brand of science, but the actual pursuit of truth, we must stop clinging to the myths that keep us comfortable.
Here are a few myths I frequently encounter:
Myth 1: I don’t cite bad papers, so manipulated science doesn’t matter.
Myth 2: All the bad activities are because of the ‘publish or perish’ culture.
Myth 3: All scientists are noble.
Myth 4: This kind of attack on science is unprecedented.
Myth 5: Speaking out makes you look paranoid or political.
Myth 6: Science will save itself.
Myth 7: There’s nothing I can do to protect science.
Myth 1: I don’t cite bad papers, so manipulated science doesn’t matter.
Truth: Manipulations of science affect everyone — more than you think.
You might not cite paper mill papers or those with boosted citations. But do you hire people? Collaborate? Recommend folks for jobs or grants? Bad papers don’t just sit on the sidelines — they build resumes, tip hiring decisions, and shape reputations.
And here’s the uncomfortable bit: anyone who’s bought their way into authorship is vulnerable. That shortcut they took to graduate or earn a bonus? It could now be used against them. Extortion isn’t a hypothetical — it’s happening (see here and here). Compromised activities compromise individuals & institutions.
Myth 2: All the bad activities are because of the ‘publish or perish’ culture.
Truth: That’s part of it, but not the whole story.
Sure, academic pressure can drive people to cut corners. But paper mills and citation cartels aren’t just sad responses to institutional stress. Sometimes they’re well-organized systems — designed to manipulate rankings, chase funding, or serve ideological interests.
Myth 3: All scientists are noble.
Truth: Scientists are people. That’s the point.
We like to think scientists are noble. But people — all of us — are shaped by incentives, fear, ambition, and sometimes, plain old ego. And scientists are humans.
That’s why science needs systems: transparency, checks and balances, reproducibility, and accountability. Not because scientists are uniquely flawed, but because we’re human. Same as lawyers, journalists, or yes, politicians. (And politicians? Maybe check your own house before trying to clean ours.)
Myth 4: This kind of attack on science is unprecedented.
Truth: Maybe these attacks are new to you. But not new to history.
Science has always been vulnerable to power. Galileo challenged the Church, suffering and yet succeeding. Trofim Lysenko promoted politically aligned ‘research’ that set Soviet biology back decades and contributed to famines.
Libraries were burned, and inconvenient knowledge was erased. None of this is new. Information warfare has historical roots. What’s new is the scale, speed, and digital sophistication of the attacks.
We’re not just dealing with disinformation. We’re watching systems — infrastructure, reputations, even archives — being manipulated in real time. This may be a first for your lifetime. But not if you have already experienced war, unfortunately. (And it is not the first in the United States.)
Myth 5: Speaking out makes you look paranoid or political.
Truth 5.1: Staying silent makes it easier for bad actors to shape the narrative.
If you care about science, you should care about who controls access to knowledge and how institutions are treated. Calling out attacks on libraries, archives, and research systems isn’t partisan — it’s responsible.
You don’t need to scream or spiral. Just name what’s happening. Use specifics. Be clear. That’s not paranoia — that’s protecting the record.
Truth 5.2: You have more power than you think. Especially with your words.
Here’s one example: The current U.S. administration forced out Dr. Carla Hayden, head of the Library of Congress. Why? That is a guess. Because she represents knowledge infrastructure that they can’t control?
Want to speak up? Great — just be precise in describing what you see:
Who is acting? ANSWER: The current US administration
Where are they targeting? ANSWER: A US governmental institution - the Library of Congress
How are they doing it? ANSWER: Withholding government funding and firing people.
This kind of clarity matters. When we name things accurately, we make them harder to ignore — and harder to spin.
Myth 6: Science will save itself.
Truth: Science is resilient — but it’s not invincible.
Yes, science has survived wars, censorship, and political meddling. But that’s because people fought for it. Spoke up. Rebuilt. Pushed for reforms.
Hope is not a strategy. Neither is nostalgia. If we want science to stay strong, we have to actively defend what makes it work — curiosity, rigor, transparency, and yes, public trust.
Myth 7: There’s nothing I can do to protect science.
Truth: You already know what to do. Share the mysteries and wonders of the universe.
Remember what got you into science in the first place? The mystery? The moment when something finally clicked? That spark?
Talk about that. Share it. Write it down. Post it. Tell someone. The public doesn’t connect to science through citations — they connect through story. And you have one.
One Last Thing
If we want to keep science honest, we have to be honest with ourselves. That means dropping the myths that make us feel safe but keep us passive.
None of us can fix everything. But all of us can do something. Tell the truth. Ask better questions. Remember the joy. Push for better systems. Name the things that are broken — and then get to work fixing what we can.
Because if we don’t protect science, someone else will decide what it’s supposed to be. And I don’t know about you, but I’m not interested in that option.