[exmadscientist]

I disagree that you need to prove who was responsible. The authors of the paper signed off on its content. They are responsible, in the same way a Professional Engineer signing off on drawings is responsible: it doesn't matter who did the work, they're guaranteeing it.

(As my username suggests, I have published scientific papers where I'm the corresponding author. I've also been added to truly shitty but honest papers against my will or knowledge, in cases where I did some of the work but left before the paper was written. I would never have approved the papers that were published had I been involved. This is an interesting wrinkle if criminal liability is on the table!)

[upsidesinclude]

Except it is nothing like a professional engineer, as an engineer is explicitly placing his professional license in jeopardy and assuming legal liability for those 'drawings'. Engineers have a far higher standard than academics.

You'll notice engineers tend to be scarce in arenas such as politics, it's safe to say people accustomed to and willing to face repercussions are a poor fit.

[exmadscientist]

> Engineers have a far higher standard than academics.

That's exactly why I'm arguing for raising standards in academia. When you publish a paper with a traditional publisher, you have to sign a bunch of stuff. You are aware that you are literally signing off on something and claiming responsibility for it.

In my opinion that responsibility should extend to legal liability for fraud with criminal penalties if mens rea can be established.

And, yes, I'd freely apply that standard to every paper I've ever published. Because they might or might not be wrong, but they're not fraudulent!