The Jan Hendrik Schon scandal of two decades ago and the fallout from it point to how to limit the spread of fraudulent research into the accepted literature:

The Jan Hendrik Schon scandal of two decades ago and the fallout from it point to how to limit the spread of fraudulent research into the accepted literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal The basic issue is that all raw data must be preserved and made available for scrutiny by other researchers after publication, as must experimental materials. Why? > "The committee requested copies of the raw data, but found that Schön had kept no laboratory notebooks. His raw data files had been erased from his computer. According to Schön, the files were erased because his computer had limited hard drive space. In addition, all of his experimental samples had been discarded or damaged beyond repair." The opposition to this standard is strongest in the corporatized patent-centric research sectors, which is most of applied science in the USA and China, etc. Ambitious academics in non-commercial sectors don't really like it either as it means competitors can jump-start their research by having access to their raw data and experimental protocols. Regardless, implementing standard practices with respect to laboratory notebooks, raw data, and experimental materials in any institution receiving federal research money makes a lot of sense - along with regular audits, with failure leading to a cutoff in funding. This problem is much broader than just the paper-mill outfits the article focuses on; some highly public and contentious related issues are public access to the raw data, research records and database sequences from the Wuhan Institute of Virology from c.2016-2019, the raw clinical trial data from Pfizer/Moderna/J&J Covid vaccine trials in 2020, and so on.