PERSPECTIVE

Fake science and the knowledge crisis: ignorance can be fatal

Originally published by the Royal Society journal Royal Society Open Science (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos), this article is being reproduced here with permission from the Royal Society and Dialogue: Science, Scientists, and Society gratefully acknowledge the authors of the article.

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos

Perspective

Cite this article: Hopf H, Krief A, Mehta G,

Matlin SA. 2019 Fake science and the knowledge

crisis: ignorance can be fatal. R. Soc. open sci. 6 :

190161.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190161

Received: 25 January 2019

Accepted: 19 March 2019

Subject Category:

Chemistry

Subject Areas:

human-computer interaction

Keywords:

fake science, trust in science, knowledge crisis

Author for correspondence:

Stephen A. Matlin

e-mail: s.matlin@imperial.ac.uk

This article has been edited by the Royal Society

of Chemistry, including the commissioning, peer

review process and editorial aspects up to the

point of acceptance.

Fake science and the

knowledge crisis: ignorance

can be fatal

Henning Hopf

1,2

, Alain Krief

1,3,4

, Goverdhan Mehta

1,5

and Stephen A. Matlin

1,6

1

International Organization for Chemical Sciences in Development, 61 rue de Bruxelles,

5000 Namur, Belgium

2

Institute of Organic Chemistry, Technische Universita

¨

t Braunschweig, Braunschweig 38106,

Germany

3

Chemistry Department, Namur University, 5000 Namur, Belgium

4

HEJ Research Institute, University of Karachi, Karachi City, Sindh 75270, Pakistan

5

School of Chemistry, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad 500046, India

6

Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK

HH, 0000-0001-7040-6506; AK, 0000-0002-9223-1644;

GM, 0000-0001-6841-4267; SAM, 0000-0002-8001-1425

Computers, the Internet and social media enable every individual

to be a publisher, communicating true or false informa tion instantly

and globally. In the ‘pos t-truth’ er a,deception is commonplace at all

levels of contemporary life. F ak ery a ffects science and social

information and the two have become highly interactiv e globally ,

undermining trust in science and the capa city of individuals and

society to make evidence-informed choices, including on life-or-

deat h issues. Ironically, drivers of fake science ar e embedded in

the current science publishing s y s tem intended to dissemina te

evidenced knowledge, in which the i ntersection of science

advancement and reputa tional and financial re wards for scientists

and publishers incentivize gaming and, in the extr eme, creation

and pr omotion of falsified results. In the battle for truth, individual

scientists, professional associations , aca demic institutions and

funding b odies must act to put their own house in order by

promoting ethics and integrity and de-incentivizing the pr oduction

and publishing of false data and results. They must speak out

against false information and fake science in circula tion and

forcefully contradict public figures who promote it. They must

contribute to resear ch tha t helps understand and counter false

information, to education tha t builds knowledge and skills in

assessinginforma tion and to str engtheni ng science litera cy in society.

1. Introduction

Seek truth from facts [1]

;shı

´

shı

`

qiu

´

shı

`

Quoted from the Han Dynasty Book of Han, AD 111

&

2019 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits

unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

Ignorance of the truth, or knowledge that is not acted upon, can be fatal. This basic principle applies at

levels from personal to planetary. Fakery affects science as well as everyday social information and, since

the two have become highly interactive globally, a vicious cycle is now operating on an increasing scale.

The fake news/fake science cycle undermines the credibility of science and the capacity of individuals

and society to make evidence-informed choices in their best interests.

At the individual level, lack of reliable knowledge about how to maintain personal physical,

nutritional and health security can result in avoidable harm or death. An illustration is the child

illnesses, permanent disabilities and deaths that have resulted worldwide from the fabricated scientific

report [2,3] that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. Despite the proven

record of efficacy of vaccines in preventing infections by deadly diseases, the widespread

dissemination of this lie, especially through social media, resulted not only in record levels of measles

infections in Europe [4] in 2018 but has added fuel to a growing, broader phenomenon known as

‘vaccine hesitancy’ [5,6].

At a collective level, false information can alter attitudes and policies on crucial ecological, social and

political issues and, in the extreme, can place entire populations at national, regional and even global

levels at risk of harm. For example, the denial of anthropogenic climate change, dismissed without

counter-evidence as ‘fake science’, has resulted in the international agreement on climate change

losing universal acceptance and its impact on the level of global warming is likely to have disastrous

consequences worldwide in the twenty-first century [7]. Portrayal of ethnic groups, foreigners or

foreign states as enemies through fake stories is an old technique which has been given new potency

by modern methods of mass communication and can provoke genocides and wars [8]. Fake Twitter

accounts have reportedly been used to send millions of messages aiming to influence attitudes

towards Brexit in the 2016 UK referendum and views on candidates in the 2016 US presidential

election [9].

2. Validated information needs to be acted upon

Awareness of the evidence that smoking causes severe illnesses and that tobacco kills up to half of its

users has not yet enabled the 1.1 billion smokers around the world to quit their addiction or

governments to introduce outright bans on smoking. Denial, fake news, the deliberate undermining of

true data by portrayal as ‘junk science’ to distort public health policy, fabricated information,

distortion of media framing and covert illicit trading have been documented in the decades-long

battle by the tobacco industry and its supporters to sustain their lucrative but fatal trade [10,11].

Examples such as climate change and tobacco illustrate the difficulties that both individuals and

society can have in determining what is factually correct, how to recognize the biases and vested

interests that may lie behind information available and how to balance risks against benefits at

personal, national and global levels.

3. Evolution of scientific validation

A critical factor is the question of who is accorded authority to determine reliability of facts and make

judgement about the veracity of information on offer. Since ancient times, those with wealth, power

and elevated hierarchical positions were treated as privileged sources, as were some individuals

regarded as selfless seekers of wisdom in the domains of spirituality, scholarship or science.

Since its introduction by Francis Bacon (1561–1626), the evolved scientific method has included

unbiased observations that are evaluated for reproducibility and subjected to careful self-criticism and

logical thought about their meaning and implications, then offered for inspection by the world at

large. The establishment of learned societies and the publication of journals, beginning with the

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, first published in 1665, provided a mechanism for

presenting information that could be critically examined by the scientific community. If disproved, the

prevailing models and theories would be replaced by new ones that were more consistent with

the contemporary state of knowledge. This provisional character of science is not a weakness but is

one of the key reasons for its strength.

The evolution of this process, into the second half of the twentieth century, established a ‘gold

standard’ for the reliability of knowledge. It has been the bedrock of the esteem in which science has

been held, as an honest and impartial source of evidence-based knowledge, not only to advance the

frontiers of the field but also to inform the public and politicians and aid their decision-making. The

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos R. Soc. open sci. 6: 190161

2

1918 landmark report by Richard Burdon Haldane to the British Prime Minister signalled the strength of

the evolving relationship between science and policy, with Haldane arguing for the principle that

politicians should stay out of decisions about research funding, listen to expertise, take time to think

and reflect before reaching a conclusion and, when asking scientists for advice, resist telling them

what that advice should be [12].

4. The changing landscape: the revolution in knowledge production

While the degree to which scientific inputs to policy formulation are important continues to be debated,

the current revolution in knowledge production has further complicated the issue. An illustration of the

extent to which the landscape has changed was seen in the centenary year of the ‘Haldane Principle’,

which witnessed a major scientific report commissioned by the US government and issued by 13

federal agencies—warning of the consequences of climate change and therefore at odds with the

Administration’s policies—being rejected by a number of leading politicians, including the President,

on the grounds that they ‘don’t believe it’, while they (baselessly) accused climate scientists of being

driven by money [13,14].

In 1991, Harnad described four stages in the means of production of knowledge in human beings

[15]. The first three were the emergence of language (hundreds of thousands of years ago) and

invention of writing (several thousand years ago) and printing (over 500 years ago). The fourth had

only very recently begun, with the invention of the Internet and the capacity it provides for anyone

in the world to be a publisher—to communicate any information they wish, true or false, instantly

and globally.

Facts and their denial are no longer determined by any type of authority, but in principle by every

individual, regardless of his or her education and reputation or studiously acquired knowledge of a

field. The manipulation of data by anyone (including scientists) becomes ever easier. Due to the ready

availability of information and communication technology (ICT) tools and access to the Internet and

social media, there now exist countless ways to create and distribute products of unknown veracity,

including manipulated textual and pictorial material. The predictions of the anarchistic philosopher of

science Paul Feyerabend that ‘anything goes’ and of the conceptual artist Joseph Beuys that ‘every

human being is an artist’ have thus become reality.

In his 1943 essay on the Spanish Civil War, the writer George Orwell recognized the way that people

in politics and wars make use of the available propaganda mechanisms to create their own versions of the

truth, expressing his fear that ‘the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world’ [16]. This

ongoing challenge has been exacerbated and accelerated greatly by ICT and the fourth revolution in

knowledge production. As Harnad recognized, each of these knowledge revolutions represented a

profound, qualitative change both in HOW human beings communicate and think and in WHAT

is thought.

5. Consequences for science and for science publishing and assessment

The impacts of the fourth revolution, barely to be seen three decades ago, are now dramatically evident,

including in contemporary language. A signpost was the declaration by Ralph Keyes in 2004 that ‘we live

in a post-truth era’—a stage of social evolution that is ‘beyond honesty’, in which ‘deception has become

commonplace at all levels of contemporary life’ [17]. More recent signposts have been the emergence in

2017 of the term ‘alternative facts’ to describe inaccurate data and the designation of ‘truth isn’t truth’ as

the 2018 Quote of the Year.

There are growing impacts both on the interface between science and society and within the domain

of science itself. It has been argued that, in the current political and media environment, ‘distrust in the

scientific enterprise and misperceptions of scientific knowledge increasingly stem... from the widespread

dissemination of misleading and biased information’ [18]. The philosopher Bruno Latour has observed

that ‘facts remain robust only when they are supported by a common culture, by institutions that can

be trusted, by a more or less decent public life, by more or less reliable media’ [19]. While surveys

about the public’s view of the trustworthiness of scientists produce results that vary with time and

place [20,21], in his 2017 book on the ‘death of expertise’ Tom Nichols described the many forces

trying to undermine the authority of ‘experts’ [22], so that the term itself has started to be used in a

contemptuous way to justify dismissing their advice [23].

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos R. Soc. open sci. 6: 190161

3

Facing this challenge, it is especially important that the scientific world as a whole upholds the

highest standards of ethical behaviour, honesty and transparency, aiming to sustain the gold

standards of research integrity and validated information. Sadly, a range of forces are working

counter to this aspiration. People in the world of science are not immune from the personal ambitions

and prevailing pressures that drive behaviour in general.

As recently described [24], three closely inter-related sub-systems (science advancement, reputational

rewards and financial returns) collectively form an overall scientific publishing system that has become

heavily flawed. It encourages scientists to distort and exaggerate their results in striving for new grants,

promotions and distinctions; and encourages publishers to cherry-pick work, hype results and distort

refereeing in the competition for high status and correspondingly high profits from publication

charges. Both authors and publishers are incentivized to game the system to their mutual advantage.

In the extreme, the perverse incentives generated result in authors fabricating data, predatory journals

hunting for papers and fake journals being created that seek only the authors’ fees for article processing.

The scale of the fake science problem is becoming increasingly evident. The percentage of scientific

articles retracted because of fraud has increased by an order of magnitude since 2000 and high rates

of retraction are seen for the most prestigious journals, illustrating both the extent to which flawed

claims are perpetrated by scientists seeking prominence and weaknesses and even fakery in the

current practice of peer reviewing [25]. A recent investigation of publishing in predatory ‘open access’

journals and fake conferences has revealed a global ecosystem of predatory publishers churning out

‘fake science’ for profit [26]. The intrusion of such journals into the traditionally respected space of

science publishing seriously undermines the integrity and credibility of science and, if not stopped

and sanctioned immediately, could turn out to be fatal for the field as we know it.

It is a fundamental strength of the scientific system that knowledge that is incorrect will eventually be

discovered and discarded. However, the pace and scale at which material that is at best dubious and at

worst deliberately false is now being published is creating a crisis. The consequences are very damaging

for the science enterprise, with a loss of respect for the results of science and the scientific method leading,

inter alia, to a steep decline in funding, jobs and students wishing to enter the field. The crisis is also

damaging society, creating an ‘anything goes’ environment in which ‘alternative facts’ are not tested and

decisions affecting the lives of people everywhere are not informed by authentic data or valid conclusions.

Thus, in the new age of the fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge, scientific

publishing has become a part of the problem of fake news, rather than a bulwark against it.

6. Ways forward

Fake science and fake news are complex phenomena involving a variety of causes, channels of

dissemination and consequences. Solving the challenges they pose will not be accomplished by a

single approach or simple set of measures, but will require concerted effort by a wide range of actors

across sectors.

To address the general societal problem of fake news, several initiatives now underway or being

discussed offer promising approaches. Apart from those directly involving science and scientists,

which are discussed separately below, they include the following.

Efforts are needed to counter the spread of false information via social media, through

modifications to compute r algorithms that favour ‘trending’ of stories without a factual basis [27],

and development of tools that help identify and build skills in recognizing false claims [28–30].

The li mitations of large-scale automated approaches and the ingenuity with which th ey can be

gamed must, however, be recognized [31].

There should be more efforts to increase the responsibility taken by social media services for the

content they permit online. The fundamental issue of whether social media should be regarded as

‘platforms’ that are not responsible for content (as the social media maintain) or as ‘publishers’ who

can, like traditional print publishers, be held liable for the content they disseminate (as some critics of

the present position propose), with many legal, regulatory, financial, ethical and operational

ramifications, remains in dispute [32,33]. Meanwhile, there has been widespread dissatisfaction with

the results of self-regulation by social media to date, and highly publicized failures in areas including

politics, racism and health have led to calls for more regulation and/or more action by social media

[34,35]. Initiatives required include efforts to increase the speed and scope of measures to remove

offensive and injurious materials and to develop algorithms to detect and exclude fraudulent sources.

Scientists must not remain bystanders in the battle against fakery in news generally as well as in their

own domains of expertise. They can contribute to understanding the phenomenon of fake news, which

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos R. Soc. open sci. 6: 190161

4

has typically been studied along four lines: characterization, creation, circulation and countering [36].

Multidisciplinary effort is needed to understand better how the Internet spreads content and how

readers process the news and information they consume, as well as how social media platforms are

manipulated to amplify particular stories through the use of fake accounts and ‘bots’ [37–40]. As an

example, WhatsApp has selected 20 research teams worldwide, including from India, to work

towards understanding how misinformation spreads and what additional steps the mobile messaging

platform could take to curb fake news [41].

Scientists must be willing to speak out when they see false information being presented in social

media, traditional print or broadcast press [42]. They must use these media fully themselves [43] to

offer facts and evidence in succinct layman’s language while emphasizing the breadth and depth of

the scientific consensus which underpins the present state of knowledge and pointing to the lack of

scientific rigour in the false information [44–46]. They must be willing to contradict public leaders

and opinion formers who condemn or dismiss valid science without offering verified evidence of their

own, as has happened, for example, in the USA and India [47–49].

For the longer term, scientists must be better advocates for and contributors to the generation of a

more scientifically literate society [50]. The ultimate defence against fake facts is the capacity of each

individual to examine critically the information on offer and to reach judgement about its

trustworthiness that is based on evidence and reasoning. Scientists can contribute to inculcating

‘scientific temper’ in society. This term, coined in 1946 by Jawaharlal Nehru, describes a way of life, a

process of thinking and acting which uses the scientific method and may, consequently, include

questioning, observing, testing, hypothesizing, analysing and communicating [51].

The role of journalism remains important and development by scientists of stronger links with

reputable journalists can encourage clearer and more accurate reporting of research [52].

Within the domain of science itself, individually and collectively through their professional

associations, academic institutions and funding bodies, scientists must act in order to put their own

house in order, through promoting ethical practices and research integrity, dealing with the problems

of reproducibility and retractions [53], developing policies and practices to de-incentivize the

production and publishing of false data and results and the use of ‘predatory’ journals that have

inadequate peer review, and making maximum use of emerging artificial intelligence capacities [54] to

detect and expose falsified data and images. Examples where measures are already being adopted or

explored include India’s use of a ‘white list’ to discourage researchers from publishing in predatory

journals [55].

Education—both broadly as part of the development of life skills and specifically in the culture and

methods of science—is an essential part of the long-term solution, so that young people are equipped

with knowledge, skills and tools to be able to critically examine information and assess its veracity

[56,57]. As noted by the President of the European Research Council, ‘We need to train a new

generation of critical minds. Science is not about learning facts by heart, established long ago; it is

about knowing how to call into question and move forward. The majority of youth rely mostly on

social media to get their news, so we must tackle this issue through improved news literacy, and it is

the task of our educators and society at large to teach children how to use doubt intelligently and to

understand that uncertainty can be quantified and measured’ [58].

Research indicates that pre-emptively inoculating people before they receive misinformation

(prebunking) is more effective than refutation after receipt (debunking) in reducing the influence of

misinformation. Synthesizing separate lines of research from education, cognitive psychology and

inoculation theory (a branch of psychological research) provides a coherent set of recommendations

for educators and communicators. Scientific explanations that involve clear communication of

scientific concepts and the current scientific consensus are ideally coupled with inoculating

explanations of how that science can be distorted [59].

Data accessibility.

All data cited in this article are taken from the sources given in the references.

Authors’ contributions. All authors listed made substantial contributions to the conception, design, drafting and revision of

this article; gave final approval of the version to be published; and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work

in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated

and resolved.

Competing interests. We declare we have no competing interests.

Funding. We are grateful to the International Organization for Chemical Sciences in Development, the Gesellschaft

Deutscher Chemiker, the Royal Society of Chemistry and Syngenta for supporting a workshop held in the Indian

Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad and hosted by its Director, Dr Srivari Chandrasekhar in January

2019, during which this article was prepared.

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos R. Soc. open sci. 6: 190161

5

References

1. Ban G, Ban Z. 111AD Book of Han. See https://

www.revolvy.com/page/Seek-truth-from-facts.

2. Rao TSS, Andrade C. 2011 The MMR vaccine and

autism: sensation, refutation, retraction, and

fraud. Indian J. Psychiatry 53, 95– 96. (doi:10.

4103/0019-5545.82529)

3. Hviid A, Hansen JV, F risc h M , Mel bye M. 2019

Measles, mumps, rubella vaccination and

autism: a nationwide cohort study. A nn.

Intern. Med. 170, 513– 520. (doi:10.7326/

M18-2101)

4. Measles cases hit record high in the European

Region. 2018 WHO European Region,

Copenhagen, Denmark, 20 August 2018. See

http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/

sections/press-releases/2018/measles-cases-hit-

record-high-in-the-european-region.

5. Kestenbaum LA, Feemster KA. 2015 Identifying

and addressing vaccine hesitancy. Pediatr. Ann.

44, e71 –e75. (doi:10.3928/00904481-

20150410-07)

6. Larson HJ. 2018 The biggest pandemic risk?

Viral misinformation. Nature 562, 309. (doi:10.

1038/d41586-018-07034-4)

7. Watts J. 2018 We have 12 years to limit climate

change catastrophe, warns UN. The Guardian,8

October 2018. See https://www.theguardian.

com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-

must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report.

8. Propaganda and practice. 2017 Human Rights

Watch 19 July 2017. See https://www.hrw.org/

reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-10.htm.

9. Romano A. 2018 Twitter released 9 million

tweets from one Russian troll farm. Here’s what

we learned. Vox, 19 October 2018. See https://

www.vox.com/2018/10/19/17990946/twitter-

russian-trolls-bots-election-tampering.

10. Brownell KD, Warner KE. 2009 The perils of

ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and

millions died. How similar is Big Food? Milbank

Q. 87, 259 –294. (doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.

2009.00555.x)

11. Smith J, Thompso n S, Lee K. 2017 Death

and taxes: the framing of the causes and

policy responses to the illicit tobacco trade in

Canadian newspapers. Cogent. Soc. Sci.

3, 1325054. (doi:10.1080/23311886.2017.

1325054)

12. Masood E. 2018 Why academic freedom is

needed more than ever. Nature 563, 621 – 623.

(doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07518-3)

13. Cillizza C. 2018 Donald Trump buried a climate

change report because ’I don’t believe it’. CNN,

27 November 2018. See https://edition.cnn.com/

2018/11/26/politics/donald-trump-climate-

change/index.html.

14. Qiu L. 2018 Fact check of the day: the baseless

claim that climate scientists are ‘driven’ by

money. New York Times, 27 November 2018.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/

politics/climate-report-fact-check.html.

15. Harnad S. 1991 Post-Gutenberg galaxy: the

fourth revolution in the means of production of

knowledge. Public-Access Comput. Syst. Rev. 2,

39–53. See http://cogprints.org/1580/1/

harnad91.postgutenberg.html.

16. Orwell G. 1943 Looking back on the

Spanish War. New Road, London. See

http://orwell.ru/library/e ssays/Spanish_

War/english/esw_1.

17. Keyes R. 2004 The post-truth era: dishonesty and

deception in contemporary life. New York, NY: St

Martin’s Press. (http://www.ralphkeyes.com/the-

post-truthera/contents/).

18. Iyengar S, Massey DS. 2019 Scientific

communication in a post-truth society. Proc.

Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7656 –7661. (doi:10.

1073/pnas.1805868115)

19. Kofman A. 2018 Bruno Latour, the post-truth

philosopher, mounts a defence of science.

New York Times Magazine, 25 October 2018. See

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/

magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-

science.html.

20. Department for Universities, Innovations

and Skills. 2008 Public attitudes to science.

See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/

government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/260669/bis-08-

p111-public-attitudes-to-science-2008-

survey.pdf.

21. Funk C. 2017 Mixed messages about

public trust in science. Issues Sci.

Technol. 34. See https://issues.org/real-

numbers-mixed-messages-about-public-

trust-in-science/.

22. Nichols T. 2017 The death of expertise: the

campaign against established knowledge and

why it matters. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

23. Siegel E. 2018 Science is not fake news. Forbes,

29 November 2018. See https://www.forbes.

com/sites/startswithabang/2018/11/29/science-

is-not-fake-news/#746df4d16f0c.

24. Matlin SA, Mehta G, Krief A, Hopf H. 2017 The

scientific publishing conundrum: a perspective

from chemistry. Beilstein Magazine 3. (doi:10.

3762/bmag.9)

25. Brainard J, You J. 2018 What a massive

database of retracted papers reveals about

science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science,25

October 2018. (doi:10.1126/science.aav8384)

26. Eckert S, Sumner C, Krause T. 2018 Inside the

fake science factory. 2018 Presentation at DEF

CON 26, Las Vegas, 11 August. See https://

media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2026/DEF%

20CON%2026%20presentations/Svea%

20Eckert%20-%20Chris%20Sumner%20-%

20Tim%20Krause/DEFCON-26-Eckert-Sumner-

Krause-Inside-the-Fake-Science-Factory-

Updated.pdf

27. Lazer DMJ et al. 2018 The science of fake news.

Science 359, 1094 – 1096. (doi:10.1126/science.

aao2998)

28. Ciampaglia GL, Menczer F. 2018 Misinformation

and biases infect social media, both

intentionally and accidentally. The Conversation,

20 June 2018. See https://phys.org/news/

2018–06-misinformation-biases-infect-social-

media.html.

29. Temming MT. 2018 Scientists enlist

computers to hunt down fake news. Science

News For Students, 27 September 2018.

See https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/

article/scientists-enlist-computers-hunt-down-

fake-news.

30. Gonzalez R. 2018 Facebook opens its private

servers to scientists studying fake news. Wired,

11 July 2018. See https://www.wired.com/story/

social-science-one-facebook-fake-news/.

31. Rone J. 2018 Collateral damage: how

algorithms to counter ‘fake news’ threaten

citizen media in Bulgaria. London School of

Economics and Political Science, Media Policy

Project, published online 18 June 2018. See

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2018/

06/18/collateral-damage-how-algorithms-to-

counter-fake-news-threaten-citizen-media-in-

bulgaria/.

32. UK Government. 2018 Social media and online

platforms as publishers. House of Lords Debate

Res. Briefing, 11 January 2018. See https://

researchbriefings.parliament.uk/

ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2018-0003.

33. Levin ST. 2018 Is Facebook a publisher? In

public it says no, but in court it says yes. The

Guardian, 3 July 2018. See https://www.

theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/

facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-

lawsuit.

34. Jankowicz N. 2018 Social media self-regulation

has failed. Here’s what Congress can do about

it. Medium, 29 November 2018. See https://

medium.com/@nina.jankowicz/social-media-

self-regulation-has-failed-heres-what-congress-

can-do-about-it-5b38b6bf9840.

35. World Economic Forum. 2018 Digital wildfires in

a hyperconnected world. Global risks 2013, 8th

edn. See http://reports.weforum.org/global-

risks-2013/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-

hyperconnected-world/?doing_wp_

cron=1551978334.8959839344024658203125.

36. Kalsnes B. 2018 Fake news. Oxford Research

Encyclopedias: Communication published online

September 2018. (doi:10.1093/acrefore/

9780190228613.013.809)

37. CNeTS member provides expertise on

misinformation battle at AAAS conference.

CNetS 15 February 2019. See http://cnets.

indiana.edu/blog/tag/misinformation/.

38. What’s trending in fake news? Tools show what

stories go viral, and if bots are to blame. Science

Daily, 17 May 2018. See https://www.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/

180517163327.htm.

39. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. 2018 The spread of

true and false news online. Science 359,

1146–1151. (doi:10.1126/science.aap9559)

40. Rutjens BT. 2018 What makes people distrust

science? Surprisingly, not politics. Aeon,28May

2018. See https://aeon.co/ideas/what-makes-

people-distrust-science-surprisingly-not-politics.

41. WhatsApp selects 20 teams to curb fake news

globally, including in India. NDTV News

Service, 13 November 2018. See https://www.

ndt v.com/india-news/whatsapp-selects-20-

teams-to-curb-fake-news-globally-inc ludin g-

in-india-1946482.

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos R. Soc. open sci. 6: 190161

6

42. Mohan N. 2018 Scientists hold key to winning

fight against ’fake news’. Phys. org,25May

2018. See https://phys.org/news/2018-05-

scientists-key-fake-news.html.

43. Bradley S, Beall A. 2017 The best science

accounts to follow on Instagram and Twitter.

Wired, 3 November 2017. See https://www.

wired.co.uk/article/the-best-scientists-to-follow-

on-instagram-and-twitter.

44. Fox F. 2018 Scientists must keep fighting fake

news, not retreat to their ivory towers. The

Guardian, 3 September 2018. See https://www.

theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/sep/03/

scientists-must-keep-fighting-fake-news-not-

retreat-to-their-ivory-towers.

45. Tattersall A. 2018 In the era of Brexit and fake

news, scientists need to embrace social media.

The Conversation, 17 July 2018. See https://

theconversation.com/in-the-era-of-brexit-and-

fake-news-scientists-need-to-embrace-social-

media-100040.

46. Cochrane Australia’s response to ’fake science’ fish

oil claims. Cochrane Australia, July 2018. See

https://australia.cochrane.org/news/cochr ane-

australias-response-fake-science-fish-oil-claims.

47. Tsipursky G. 2018 (Dis)trust in science: can we

cure the scourge of misinformation? Sci. Am. 5

July 2018. See https://blogs.scientificamerican.

com/observations/dis-trust-in-science/.

48. Center for Science and Democracy. 2019 Attacks

on science. Union of Concerned Scientists, March

2019. See https://www.ucsusa.org/center-

science-and-democracy/attacks-on-science.

49. Padma TV. 2019 Indian scientists protest against

unscientific claims made at conference. Nature

565, 274. (doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00073-5)

50. Scheufele DA, Krause NM. 2019 Science

audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proc.

Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7662 –7669. (doi:10.

1073/pnas.1805871115)

51. Nehru J. 1946 The discovery of India, p. 512.

New York, NY: John Day.

52. Tattersall A. 2018 New research must be better

reported, the future of society depends on it.

The Conversation, 8 January 2018. See https://

theconversation.com/new-research-must-be-

better-reported-the-future-of-society-depends-

on-it-87407.

53. Brainard J, You J. 2018 What a massive

database of retracted papers reveals about

science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science,

25 October 2018. See http://www.sciencemag.

org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-

retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-

publishing-s-death-penalty.

54. Impey C. 2018 Alarmed by fake news? Fake

science is just as serious of a problem. Salon,27

November 2018. See https://www.salon.com/

2018/11/27/alarmed-by-fake-news-fake-science-

is-just-as-serious-of-a-problem/.

55. Ravindranath P. 2017 India’s white list to curb

researchers from publishing in predatory

journals. Science Chronicle, 16 January 2017. See

https://journosdiary.com/2017/01/16/india-ugc-

predatory-journals/.

56. Fryling-Indiana K. 2018 Scientists call for action

in fight against ‘fake news’. Futurity, 9 March

2018. See https://www.futurity.org/fighting-

fake-news-1699352/.

57. Maslog C. 2017 How can scientists fight the

tide of ‘fake news’? Open University,

2 November 2017. See https://www.open.edu/

openlearn/science-maths-technology/across-

the-sciences/how-can-scientists-fight-the-tide-

fake-news.

58. Bourguignon J-P. 2018 Scientists can lead the

fight against fake news. World Economic Forum

Annual Meeting of the New Champions, 16

September 2018. See https://www.weforum.

org/agenda/2018/09/scientists-can-lead-the-

fight-against-fake-news/.

59. Cook J. 2016 Countering climate science

denial and communicating scientific

consensus. Oxford Research Encyclopedias:

Climate Science published online October

2016. (doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.

013.314)

royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos R. Soc. open sci. 6: 190161

7