The Age of (Mis)Information

It’s already hard to tell what is real and what is not on the internet. From plain, old-fashioned lying by fabricating stories and spreading them on social media, to now the hyper realistic AI photos and videos, the line between real and fake are blurring. Although, you could argue that Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are not reputable sources of information, in which case you would be correct. So, perhaps, instead you decide to go right to the source material. You hop onto Google Scholar and search for a peer-reviewed journal article on the subject. You pick out a good source and absorb the information only to find out later it was completely false. What do we do if even our “sources” are corrupted? Can the truth be bought?

First off, what makes journal articles reputable sources of information, aside from the technical terminology? Science isn’t science unless it is written down. Journal articles are usually authored by universities and private institution staff members involved in research. Authors are highly motivated to publish papers because that is the currency of academia and research. Tenured professors make the most money for their institution through research grants and publications. For most, teaching is nearly secondary to research. For private and government research institutions, publications prove that their sponsors’ money has been put to good use and is an argument to ask for more. So authors want to publish a lot of high quality research articles. That’s what keeps their jobs.

Now, where they publish is very important. The chosen journal may be equally as important as the content of their research itself. Many journals have their own reputation and notoriety. The more reputable the journal is, the more rigorous and competitive the process is for publication. Reputable journals require papers to be peer-reviewed and evaluated before being considered for publication. That means at least one person within the field of interest, whether it is sociology, biology, computer science, physics, etc. will read the paper and make comments. For example the reviewer might say something like “I don’t think you have enough evidence to support your second claim within your thesis. You should show more quantitative data before this deadline for the possibility of publication,” and the paper may be denied. There may even be small comments on grammar and word flow before it passes. The paper is then sent back to the authors to fix by a secondary deadline before publication.

The journals and books that publish these articles are also motivated to keep articles. The more articles that are published, the more subscriptions the journal receives and the more money the company makes. The better articles that are published, the more notoriety the journal receives. So the authors and publication offices need each other to do well.

It is a rigorous and frustrating system, but this is done on purpose. It makes sure the science and logic being presented is sound before other researchers utilize it and accept this data as factual. If something unproven slips by, there can be serious consequences.

You may be thinking that the damage may be nearly negligible because “really, who sits around reading academic articles for fun?” I sure don’t. But data quickly seeps into public knowledge. There is one, very infamous example of bad data being passed into a journal by accident.

Have you ever heard that vaccines cause autism? Maybe in person or online? We can thank Andrew Wakefield and his twelve co-authors for this rumor after the publication of Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children which was published in The Lancet (a popular medical journal) in 1998. Dr. Wakefield has been found guilty of ethical, medical, and scientific misconduct following the publication of this journal article. It was found that they had falsified medical data to falsely prove a relationship between vaccination and behavior disorders in 12 children [1]. Not only had they falsified data, they had abused the children, performing medically invasive procedures on the minors. Even further, Wakefield had spent over $400,000 seeking evidence to sue vaccination companies and sell his own measles vaccine.

In summary, a man abused children and lied to everyone to be able to make more money off of his own business. Stop me if it sounds familiar.

In 2010, a full retraction was ordered and the paper was completely removed from all scientific literature and Dr. Wakefield had been stripped of his medical license. But, it was too late. This idea had already implanted itself in the public, even though it had been thoroughly disproven. Today, it is a cautionary tale amongst scientists and authors. Since then, hundreds of studies have been conducted showing no correlation between vaccines and autism [2][3][4][5][6][7].

But it was shut down and the justice system finally cracked down on the immoral and unscientific practices. So, why bring it up now? Because what if instead both parties were incentivized to published fake data? What if there was no one to tear down the false claims a researcher made? What if it wasn’t real to begin with? What information could we trust? Who do we trust? What is fact and what is fiction?

With the emergence of paper mills, these are troubling questions we have to ask ourselves. Unfortunately, money makes the world go ‘round. What if journals lied to authors, claiming to provide peer-reviews and rigorous testing, only to skip it to be able to publish more articles each year [8]?

Remember the symbiotic relationship between the authors and publication offices? What if they conspired together to make more money? What if you could pay a “paper mill” to publish a paper you didn’t even write, slap your name on it, and pretend like it’s a real study in a real article [9]?

Sure, these falsified articles are often caught after the fact and retracted, but it’s not immediate. It is long enough for other researchers to see it and cite their work. It is long enough for the false data to spread outside of its field. It’s gotten so out of hand that a retraction watch database was created, where you can search an author and see how many of their papers were retracted [10]. Currently, author Joachim Boldt is at the top globally with 240 retractions. That’s 240 research articles with his name that have been suspected as false data. Most authors don’t write 240 articles over their entire career.

Suddenly, information and fact become secondary to money. Information becomes less valuable. And that, my friends, is how we get measles outbreaks and global pandemics. It may sound like a gross exaggeration, but this is a real consequence that is happening right now because of the spread of false information.

I wish I could end this with a positive message, but with the rise of AI, the condition continues to worsen. AI is more incorrect than correct, but at a quick glance, it can generate an article that looks real enough. This is causing a spike in misinformation that goes beyond fake cat videos. The only advice I have is: think critically. Trust your brain to discern fact from fiction and continue to feed truth over money.

[1] Flaherty DK. The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science. Ann Pharmacother. 2011 Oct;45(10):1302-4. doi: 10.1345/aph.1Q318. Epub 2011 Sep 13. PMID: 21917556.

[2] DeStefano F, Shimabukuro TT. The MMR Vaccine and Autism. Annu Rev Virol. 2019 Sep 29;6(1):585-600. doi: 10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015515. Epub 2019 Apr 15. PMID: 30986133; PMCID: PMC6768751.

[3] Taylor, L. E., Swerdfeger, A. L., & Eslick, G. D. (2014). Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine, 32(29),

[4] Di Pietrantonj, C., Rivetti, A., Marchione, P., Debalini, M. G., & Demicheli, V. (2021). Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4).

[5] World Health Organization (WHO) Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) (2026). Global Vaccine Safety Analysis.

[6] Hviid, A., Hansen, J. V., Frisch, M., & Melbye, M. (2019). Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism: a nationwide cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 170(8), 513-520.

[7] Jain, A., Marshall, J., Buikema, A., Bancroft, T., Kelly, J. P., & Newschaffer, C. J. (2015). Autism occurrence by MMR vaccine status among US children with older siblings with and without autism. JAMA, 313(15), 1534-1540.

[8] Elmore SA, Weston EH. Predatory Journals: What They Are and How to Avoid Them. Toxicol Pathol. 2020 Jun;48(4):607-610. doi: 10.1177/0192623320920209. Epub 2020 Apr 22. PMID: 32319351; PMCID: PMC7237319.

[9] Fake Publications in Biomedical Science: Red-flagging Method Indicates Mass Production

Bernhard A. Sabel, Emely Knaack, Gerd Gigerenzer, Mirela Bilc

medRxiv 2023.05.06.23289563; doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.06.23289563

[10] https://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1