> Is there evidence of American scientists who have greatly benefited in reputation and prestige, despite doing very shoddy work? This is the exact point of th

> Is there evidence of American scientists who have greatly benefited in reputation and prestige, despite doing very shoddy work? This is the exact point of the replication crisis. Within social science, the answer is an absolute yes. That's why we have been having this conversation more and more over the past decade. > Meanwhile in China, there are numerous article-factory-journals that are pay to publish, you can put your shoddy work in those and amp up your publication count easily. Surely, these exist in the USA, but are career scientists at major institutions utilizing these shady Chinese journals? In China, people know about scientific reputation perfectly well, which is why publication in Nature/Science/Cell ensures great financial reward. There are shoddy journals everywhere, of course. Yes, top scientists at top institutions and rigorous fields in the US don't use them. The same is true for top scientists at top institutions in China. The average quality is probably lower (due to the inherent difficulties of doing cutting-edge science only two generations removed from mass starvation) but the principle is the same.