Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific Truth in a Post-Truth Era: A Review*

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The evolution from the classical, non-institutionalized philosopher to the contemporary, professional scientist is reviewed. The rapid increase in the number of scientists and publications post-1950 occurred alongside the backdrop of an educational crisis and challenges in evaluating scientific work's quality. This analysis delves into the robustness of scientific truth across both hard and soft sciences. Difficulties in grasping and implementing the reproducibility of experimental data strategies have led to weakened empirical evidence and a fragile scientific truth. The emergence of intensified competitiveness, heightened publication pressures, and the context of a post-truth society have fostered an environment encouraging significant scientific misconduct. The tiny elite of exemplary scientists struggles to uplift the quality of scientific work and eliminate scientific misconduct. Instances of fraud cast a shadow over the realms of science and technology, despite their pivotal roles in driving the economy and shaping contemporary culture. Safeguarding the principles bequeathed by classical scientists necessitates enhancements in peer review mechanisms and the comprehensive training of young scientists. This approach aims to ensure the transfer of scientific truth in a consolidated form to future generations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmadpoor, M., & Jones, B. F. (2017). The dual frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance. Science, 357(6351), 583–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. J. (2007). Cheves Walling dies at 91.

  • Alhumaid, K. (2019). Four ways technology has negatively changed education. Journal of Education and Social Research, 9(4), 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alic, M. (1986). Hypatia’s Heritage: A History of Women in Science from Antiquity through the Nineteenth Century. Beacon Press Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D., et al. (1976). Lotka’s law: A problem in its interpretation and application. Social Studies of Science, 6, 269–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, D. G. (1994). The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ, 308, 283–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amos, K. A. (2014). The ethics scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 102(2), 87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82, 853–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angell, M. (2009). Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption, The New York Review of Books, 56(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Antes, A. L., English, T., Baldwin, K. A., & DuBois, J. M. (2018). The role of culture and acculturation in researchers’ perception of rules in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 361–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, M. (2019). Culture and Anarchy. Anodos Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Belenzon, S., & Patacconi, A. (2018). The decline of science in corporate R&D. Strategic Management, 39, 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atlas, M. C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(2), 242–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auriol, L. (2010). "Careers of Doctorate Holders: Employment and Mobility Patterns", OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2010/04, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5kmh8phxvvf5-en.

  • Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., & Manso, G. (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life science. The Rand Journal of Economics, 42(3), 527–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baber, R. (2017). What is scientific truth? Climacteric, 20(2), 83–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature, 533, 452–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balietti, S., & Riedl, C. (2021). Incentive, competition, and inequality in markets for creative production. Research Policy, 50, 104212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgardt, C. (1951). Johannes Kepler – Life and Letters, - Philosophical Library,

    Google Scholar 

  • Beall, J. (2019). Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf and Beall’s list of potential predatory journals and publishers - https://beallslist.net

  • Bedini, S. A. (1984). Derek J. De Solla Price (1922-1983). Technology and Culture, 25(3), 701–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benos, D. J., Fabres, J., Farmer, J., Gutirrez, J. P., Hennessy, K., Kosek, D., Lee, J. H., Olteanu, D., Russell, T., Shaikh, F., & Wang, K. (2005). Ethics and scientific publication. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures, 12(1), 11–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, T., de Vaan, M., & van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings. National Academy of Sciences. United States of America, 115, 4887–4890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolli, R. (2015a). Reflections on the Irreproducibility of Scientific Papers. Circulation Research, 117, 665–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolli, R. (2015b). The crucial importance of (and increasing disregard for) the test of time. Circulation Research, 117, 755–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafo, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgman, P. W. (1947). Scientists and social responsibility. The Scientific Monthly, 65(2), 148–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2005). Correlation and consequences of degree purchasing among Canadian university students. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35(2), 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. C. H., De Barra, M., & Earp, B. D. (2022). Broad medical uncertainty and the ethical obligation for openness. Synthese, 200(121), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S. G. (1974). Should the history of science be rated X? The way scientist behave (according to historians) might not be a good model for students. Science, 183, 1164–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. M., Sievert, M. E., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 296–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. M., Sievert, M. E., Schultz, T. R., & Scoville, C. (1999). Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 87(4), 437–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, C. (1983). Science talent: the elusive gift. School Science and Mathematics, 83(8), 654–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. (2010). Journals step up plagiarism policing. Nature, 466, 167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (1998a). Peer review for journals as it stands today – Part 1. Science Communication, 19(3), 181–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (1998b). Peer review for journals as it stands today – Part 2. Science Communication, 19(4), 277–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavojova, V., Srol, J., & Jurkovic, M. (2020). Why should we try to think like scientists? Scientific reasoning and susceptibility to epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive biases. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Hu, Z., Milbank, J., & Schultz, T. (2013). A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 234–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chorney, T. T. (2008). The commercialization of higher education as a threat to the values of ethical citizenship. Ethical Citiz Post-Secondary Educ, 2(1), 2008.

  • Cleveland, W. S. (1984). Graphs in scientific publications. American Statistician, 38, 261–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cokol, M., Iossifov, I., Rodriguez-Esteban, R., & Rzhetsky, A. (2007). How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO Reports, 8(5), 422–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1972). The Ortega hypothesis. Science, 178, 368–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social Stratification in Science. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (1994). Why the social sciences won’t become high-consensus, rapid-discovery science. Sociological Forum, 9(2), 155–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coudert, F. X. (2019). Correcting the scientific record: retraction practices in chemistry and materials science. Chemistry of Materials, 31, 3593–3598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cournand, A. (1977). The code of the scientist and its relationship to ethics. Science, 198, 699–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cournand, A., & Meyer, M. (1976). The scientist’s code. Minerva, 14(1), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, S. E. (1988). Derek Price and the Paradigm of Science Policy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 13(3-4), 361–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, S. (1984). Derek John De Solla Price: The Man and the Contribution. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 72(2), 238–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion of evidence of structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CSE. (2022). White paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/publication-ethics/

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity – Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention,

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow - The Psychology of Optimal Experience,

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., & Yahia, M. (2011). The Ph.D. factory: The world is producing more PhDs than ever before; Is it time to stop? Nature, 472, 276–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. (2005). Obesity expert owns up to million-dollar crime. Nature, 434, 424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1990). The structure and content of truth. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(6), 279–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dedijer, S. (1964). Migration of scientists: A worldwide phenomenon and problem. Nature, 201, 964–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2014). Pure science and the problem of progress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 46, 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, O. (2015). Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review. British Medical Journal, BMJ, 2015(350), h1783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1934). Essays in science. The Wisdom Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Lariviere, V. (2015). Miscondact policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2011). Retracted science and the retracted index. Infection and Immunity, 79(10), 3855–3859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2015). Competitive science: Is competition ruining science? Infection and Immunity, 83(4), 1229–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS, 109(42), 17028–17033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firestein, S. (2012). Ignorance – How it Drives Science. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestein, S. (2016). Failure – Why Science Is So Successful. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, P. (2007). The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and of ideology in the history of technology. History and Technology, 23(1/2), 1–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2012). Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 countries. Nature Biotechnology, 30(12), 1250–1253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2014). The mover’s advantage: The superior performance of migrant scientists. Economics Letters, 122(1), 89–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup, B. (2015). The 5 Symptoms of Being a Scientist (Posted on June 24) (https://snco.com/5-symptoms-scientist/?gclid=CjwKCAiAv_KMBhAzEiwAs-rX1Ni_zf8mAfyQYQuRspSQt1cmhUj0qq8hOyC63eP0XcOgmzH8Pf8cPBoCJuUQAvD_BwE)

  • Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1964). Science citation index: A new dimension in indexing. Science, 144(3619), 649–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1970). Citation index for studying science. Nature, 227, 669–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1985). In tribute to Dereck John de Solla Price: A citation analysis of little science, big science. Scientometrics, 7(3), 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1998). I had a dream….about uncitedness. The Scientist, 12(14), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: a brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2016) Interview at Universitat de Barcelona, (https://www.ub.edu/web/ub/en/ menu_eines/noticies/2016/entrevistes/Eugene_Garfield.html)

  • Garfield, E., & Sher, I. H. (1963). New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation, 14, 195–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garte, S. J. (1995). Guidelines for training in the ethical conduct of scientific research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaudiana, R. A. (1994). George E. Ham July 27, 1921-1994. Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part A, 31(9), v.

  • Gauld, C. (1982). The scientific attitude and science education: A critical reappraisal. Science Education, 66(1), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, B. (1960). The academic scientists, 1940-1960. Science, 132, 598–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gliboff, S. (2006). The case of Paul Kammerer: Evolution and experimentation in the early 20th century. Journal of the History of Biology, 39, 525–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. The Lancet, 381, 1097–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, D. (1993). Scientific elites, and scientific illiterates, Engineering and Science Spring, 23-31. California Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Google (2023) Citations public profiles: Highly cited researchers (h>100). https://www.adscientificindex.com/highly-cited-researcher

  • Gopalakrishna, G., ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLoS One, 17(2), e0263023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gower, B. (1996). Scientific Method: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from scholarly literature. PLoS One, 7, e68397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, B. (1983). Derek Price (1922-1983) and the social studies of science. Scientometrics, 6, 5–7.

  • Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 693–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grudniewicz, A., Mohr, D., Cobey, K. D., et al. (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature, 576, 210–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ham, G. E. (1981). In memoriam: Professor Gaetano F. D’Alelio. Journal of Macromoleculart Science: Part A - Chemistry, 16(6), 1061–1063.

  • Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargens, L.L. (1975). Patterns of Scientific Research – A comparative analysis of research in three scientific fields – (The ASA Rose Monograph Series)

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, B. (2020). Can Creativity be Taught? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(1), 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitman, E. (2014). Cross-cultural considerations in U.S. research ethics education. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 15(12), 130–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmer, O., & Rescher, N. (1959). On the epistemology of the inexact sciences. Management Science, 6(1), 25–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., & Reinhart, M. (2017). The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology Review, 65(6), 814–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heylen, B., & Nachtegael, M. (2013). The integration of fuzzy sets and statistics: toward strict falsification in the social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 47, 3185–3200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., Rijcke, S. D., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffel, C. (1998). Journal impact factor. Allergy, 53, 1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker. (2009). J.Corruption from a cross-cultural perspective. Cross-Cultural Management, 16(3), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopf, H., Krief, A., Mehta, G., & Matlin, S. A. (2019). Fake science and the knowledge crisis: ignorance can be fatal. Royal Society Open Science, 6(5), 190161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hounshell, D. A. (1980). Edison and the Pure Science Ideal in 19th century America. Science, 207, 612–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, R. S., Oswald, A. J., & Charlton, B. G. (2009). The elite brain drain. The Economic Journal, 119, F231–F251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005a). Contradicted and Initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(2), 218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005b). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medecine, 2(8), e124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007). Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 324–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & Massey, D. S. (2019). Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 7656–7661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karaman, M. A., Schmit, M. K., Ulus, I. C., & Oliver, M. (2018). International counseling students’ perception of ethics. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 677–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (2006). Editorial Retraction. Science, 311, 335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kharasch, E. D., Avram, M. J., Clark, J. D., Davidson, A. J., Houle, T. T., Levy, J. H., London, M. J., Sessler, D. I., & Vutskits, L. (2021). Peer review matters: Research quality and the public trust. Anesthesiology, 134(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E. Y. J., & LaBianca, A. S. (2018). Ethics in academic writing help for international students in higher education: perceptions of faculty and students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16, 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D., (2012) posted on Leadership Matters https://www.leadership-matters.biz/10-qualities-of-a-gentleman

  • Klasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2018). Research waste is still a scandal – an essay. BMJ, 363, k4645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knobler, Y. (1971). Professor Yecheskel Liwschitz, In Memoriam. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 9(2), 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, R. (1998). Science emerges from the “Dark age” of the Ceausescus. Science, 280, 1829–1830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koltun, V., & Hafner, D. (2021). The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLoS One, 16(6), e0253397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpela, K. M. (2010). How long does it take for the scientific literature to purge itself of fradulant material?: The Breuning case revisited. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 26(4), 843–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1961). The function of measurement in modern physical science. ISIS, 52(2), 161–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). Historical structure of scientific discovery. Science, 136(3518), 760–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Forth Edition -The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kunst, E. D. (1950). Size, viscosity, and precipitation of polymer molecules in solution. Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas, 69, 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2008). M.Lotka' s law, co-authorship and interdisciplinary publishing. In Fourth international conference on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics & ninth COLLNET meeting, Humboldt-Universität - institute for library and information science (IBI), Berlin. 

  • Laudan, L. (1968). Theories of the scientific method from Plato to Mach: A bibliographical review. History of Science, 7(1), 1–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2005). Migration currents among the scientific elite. Minerva, 43, 377–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazer, D. M. J., Braun, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359, 1094–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederberg, J., & Tatum, E. L. (1946). Gene Recombination in Escherichia coli. Nature, 158, 558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, J.(2010). The truth wears off, (Is there something wrong with the scientific method?) The New Worker, December 13, -https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off?utm_source=onsite-share&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=the-new-yorker

  • Lei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WoS retractions by a Chinese researcher (1997-2016). Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 1409–1420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ, 326, 1167–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports, 3, 3146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B. J. (2021). The neoliberal academic: Illustrating shifting academic norms in an age of hyper-performativity. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(5), 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackay, A. (1984). Derek John de Solla Price: An appreciation. Social Studies of Science, 14, 315–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J. (1979). Phychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science, 9, 349–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marco-Cuenca, G., Salvador-Olivan, J. A., & Arquero-Aviles, R. (2021). Fraud in scientific publicationsin the European Union – An analysis through their retractions. Scientometrics, 126, 5143–5164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark, H. F. (1993). From small organic molecules to large – A century of progress. In the series J. I. Seeman (Ed.),  Profiles, Pathways and Dreams – Autobiographies of Eminent Chemists. American Chemical Society Washington, D.C.

  • Martin, B. (1992). Scientific fraud and the power structure of science. Prometheus, 10(1), 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. W. (2006). Moral creativity in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 421–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinich, A. P. (1996). Review on “Steven Shapin. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth - Century England, 1994”. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 34(1), 145–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehra, M. R., Desai, S. S., Ruschitzka, F., & Patel, A. N. (2020). Hudroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. The Lancet, 13, 395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Memon, A. R. (2020). Similarity and plagiarism in scholarly journal submissions: Bringing clarity to the concept for authors, reviewers and editors. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 35(27), e217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng-Lewis, Y., Xian, H., Lewis, G., & Zhao, Y. (2021). “Enthusiastic admiration is the first principle of knowledge and its last”: A qualitative study of admiration for the famous. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211006730

  • Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in Science. Science, 159, 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science. II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79, 606–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mgbeoji, I. (2003). The juridical origins of the international patent system: Towards a historiography of the role of patents in industrialization. Journal of the History of International Law, 5(2), 403–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalek, A. M., Hutson, A. D., Wicher, C. P., & Trump, D. L. (2010). The cost and underappreciated consequences of research misconduct: A case study. PLoS Medicine, 7(8), e1000318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, M., & Millar, I. T. (1988). Chemists as autobiographers. Journal of Chemical Education, 65(10), 847–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, M., Millar, I. T., & Walaschewski, E. G. (1985). Chemist as autobiographers: the 19th century. Journal of Chemical Education, 62(4), 275–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1999). Being and Absolute Skeptic. Science, 284, 1625–1626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2007). The Objectives of Science. Philosophia Scientiæ, 11(1), 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milojevic, S. (2015). Quantifying the cognitive extent of science. Journal of Informatics, 9(4), 962–973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski, P. (2018). The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science, 48(2), 171–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modgil, S., Gill, R., Sharma, V. L., Velassery, S., & Anand, A. (2018). Nobel Nominations in Science: constraints of the fairer sex. Annals of Neurosciences, 25, 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M. (1976). The mediating role of the scientific elite. Social Studies of Science, 6, 445–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C. (2003). Human Accomplishment – The Pursuit of Excellence in the Art and Science, 800 B.C to 1950. HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nabout, J. C., Perreira, M. R., Teresa, F. B., Carneiro, F. M., da Cunha, H. F., de Souza Ondei, L., Carmori, S. S., & Soares, T. N. (2015). Publish (in a group) or perish alone: the trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers. Scientometrics, 102, 357–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nauta, B., & Sansen, W. (2008). Retraction of papers with falsified information. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 43(6), 1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale, A. V., Northrup, J., Dailey, R., Marks, E., & Abrams, J. (2007). Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaisen, J. (2007). Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 609–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, M. W., & Andersen, J. P. (2021). Global citation inequality is on the rise. PNAS, 118(7), e2012208118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, G. K. (1926). Krammerer’s Alytes. Nature, 118, 209–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R., & Irzik, G. (2003). Incredulity towards Lyotard: a critique of a postmodernist account of science and knowledge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 34, 391–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2020). What is replication? PLoS Biology, 18(3), e3000691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSF. (2021). National center for science and engineering statistics, doctorate recipients from U.S. universities, NSF 22-300 (November). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22300/report

  • O’Connor, C. (2019). The natural selection of conservative science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 76, 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, T. K. (1973). Estimating the migration of US-educated manpower from Asia to the United States. Social and Economic Studies, 22(3), 335–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, F. M., Cruz, N., & Krach, S. (2018). The impact factor fallacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendlebury, D. A. (1991). Science, citation and funding. Science, 251, 1410–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrish, D. M. (1999). Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature. Academic Medicine, 74(3), 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poehlman, E. T., Toth, M. J., & Gardner, A. W. (1995). Changes in energy balance and body composition at menopause: A controlled longitudinal study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 123(9), 673–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva, I(1), 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pool, R. (2018). Return to responsibility: From the journal impact factor to the latest alt metrics, scholarly players are crying out for metrics to be used responsibly, reports Rebecca pool. Research Information, 96, 4–8.

  • Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjunctures, and Refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, J. R., & Wollenweber, B. (2018). Science in an Age of (Non)Reason. In A. Tressaud (Ed.), Progress in Science, Progress in Society (pp. 59–70). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. S. (1963). Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. S. (1964). Ethics of scientific publication. Science, 144, 655–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. S. (1965a). The Science of Science. Buletin. Atomic Scientists, 21(8), 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. S. (1965b). The scientific foundation of science policy. Nature, 4981, 233–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. S. (1965c). Is technology historically independent of science? A study in statistical historiography. Technology and Culture, 6(4), 553–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. S. (1965d). Networks of scientific papers: The pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific front. Science, 149, 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. S. (1965e). The pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science, 149, 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5), 292–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. D. S. (1978). Science since Babylon, Enlarged Edition. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, F., Schange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews – Drug Discovery, 10, 712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przibram, H. (1926). Prof. Paul Kammerer. Nature, 118, 555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawat, S., & Meena, S. (2014). Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 19(2), 87–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robin, E. V. D., & Feibleman, J. (1944). The threat to pure science. Science, 100(2606), 519–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. (1976). Memoirs of a Minor Prophet – 70 Years of Organic Chemistry. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll-Hansen, N. (2005). The Lysenki effect: undermining the autonomy of science. Endeavour, 29(4), 143–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, F. (2019). Philosophy of science and the replicability crisis. Philosophy Compass, 14(11), e12633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. (1991). Nineteenth-Century Attitudes: Men of Science. Springer-Science.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, H. A. (1883). A plea for pure science. Science, 2(29), 242–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, W., & Taagepera, R. (2005). Corruption, culture, and communism. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2016). The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature, 533, 147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences United States of America, 116, 7662–7669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimanski, L. A., & Alperin, J. P. (2018). The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future. F1000Research, 7, 1605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmaus, W. (1981). Fraud and sloppiness in science. Perspectives, 1(3/4), s–1.

  • Schmidt, S. (2009). Shell we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, G. L. (1998). The Science of God. Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, A. (2007). Peer review and the relevance of science. Futures, 39, 827–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scruton, R. (2014). The Soul of the World. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Selye, H. (1975). From Dream to Discovery – On Being a Scientist (Second ed.). Arno Press – New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1995). Epilog: The way we live now. In A Social History of Truth (pp. 409–417). Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England, The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (2010). Science and Modernity. In Never Pure (Vol. 2010, pp. 375–391). The John Hopkins University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, H. (2013). US Senate backs immigration plan – Proposal would lift visa caps for US-trained scientists and engineers. Nature, 499, 17–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, Q., Wang, Z., Zhou, Q., Hou, R., Gao, X., He, S., Zhao, S., Ma, Y., Zhang, X., Guan, Q., & Chen, Y. (2021). More consideration is needed for retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews in medicine: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 139, 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, J. (1996). The 100 Most Influential Scientists - A ranking of the 100 Greatest Scientists: Past and Present,

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika, 42(3/4), 425–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its Development: An Emergenic and Epigenetic Model. Psychological Review, 106(3), 435–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. (2020). A theoretical discussion on the state of scientific research and publishing: critical reactions and new directions. Human Arenas, 3, 214–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, S. (2001, March 1-3) Science, and Technology in Education – Current Challenges and Possible Solution, Invited contribution to Meeting of European Ministers of Education and Research, Uppsala, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Svein-Sjoberg/publication/228840537_Science_and_Technology_Education_Current_Challenges_and_Possible_Solutions/links/55ca66ee08aebc967dfbe385/Science-and-Technology-Education-Current-Challenges-and-Possible-Solutions.pdf

  • Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3, 160384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, J., Johnston, & Archibald, A.B. (2000). Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian A.survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science, 30(1), 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soltani, P., & Patini, R. (2020). Retracted COVID-19 articles: a side-effect of the hot race to publication. Scientometrics, 125, 819–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springer Efforts. (2019). https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/the-source/blog/blogposts-research-integrity/what-is-research-integrity-and-what-is-all-about/16735706

  • Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One, 8(7), e68397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, A. W. (1944). The threat to pure science. Science, 100(2599), 356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A. J., & Plotkin, J. B. (2021). The natural selection of good science. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1510–1518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedesco, J. C., Opertti, R., & Amadio, M. (2014). The curriculum debate: Why it is important today. Prospects, 44, 527–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomasson, P., & Stanley, J. C. (1955). Uncritical citation of criticized data. Science, 121, 610–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triggle, C. R., MacDonald, R., Triggle, D. J., & Grierson, D. (2022). Requiem for impact factor and high publication charges. Accountability in Research, 29(3), 133–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuchman, B. W. (1980). The decline of quality. York Times, Magazine, 2(104), 38–41.

  • Turner, G. L. (1984). Obituary Derek John de Solla Price 1922-1983. Annals of Science, 41, 105–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urlings, M. J. E., Duyx, B., Swaen, G. M. H., Bouter, L. M., & Zeegers, M. P. (2021). Citation bias and other determinants of citation in biomedical research: findings from six citation networks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 132, 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, C. J. I. M. (2012). Intended and Unintended Consequences of a Publish-or-Perish Culture: A Worldwide Survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Besselaar, P., Hemlin, S., & Van der Weijden, I. (2012). Collaboration and competition in research. Higher Education Policy, 25, 263–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Noorden, R. (2017). The science that’s never been cited. Nature, 552, 162–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 567–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walling, C. (1964). A Showplace for Blending Science and Technology (Book review). Science, 146(3646), 908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walling, C. (1995). Fifty Years of Free Radicals, Profiles, Pathways and Dreams. Autobiographies of Eminent Chemists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardil, L., & Hauert, C. (2015). Cooperation and co-authorship in scientific publishing. Physical Review, E 91, 012825, 1–6.

  • Watson, J. D. (2004). The Double Helix. Scientific American – Modern Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. D. (2007). In A. Alfred (Ed.), Avoid boring people (Lessons from a Life in Science). Knopf-Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., Rothschild, D. M., & Mobius, M. (2021). Measuring the news and its impact on democracy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912443118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (2013). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Routledge.

  • Weinberg, A. M. (1962). The federal laboratories and science education. Science, 136, 27–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J. D., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2021). Misinformation in and about science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912444117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, L. (2022) Neuropathologist John Trojanowski Dies at 75, & Famed Neuroscientist Charles Stevens Dies at 88, The Scientists, https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/neuropathologist-john-trojanowski-dies-at-75-69820

  • Wouters, P. (2017). Eugene Garfield (1925-2017). Nature, 543, 492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P. F. (1999). The Citation Culture, PhD Thesis –. Amsterdam University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, L., Kittur, A., Youn, H., Milojević, S., Leahey, E., Fiore, S. M., & Ahn, Y. Y. (2022). Metrics, and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science. Journal of Informetrics, 16(2), 101290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuchty, S.B., Jones, F., &. Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge, Science, 316, 1036-1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yagi, E., Badash, L., & Beaver, D. B. (1996). Derek J. de S. Price (1922-1983) Historian of science and herald of scientometrics. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 21(1), 64–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, P. (2019). Toward a framework for (re)thinking the ethics and politics of international student mobility. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(5), 518–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo-The, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2021). An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Accountability in Research, 28(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo-The, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2022). Sustained rise in retractions in the life sciences literature during the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Publications, 10(3), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zirkle, C. (1954). Citation of fraudulent data. Science, 120, 189–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H., & Lederberg, J. (1986). Postmature scientific discovery? Nature, 6098, 629–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evolution in science: Institutionalization, structure, and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to our colleagues and friends Ellen Nagy, George Blum, Scott Johnson, Liviu Constantinescu, Mike Peck, David Townsend, Liviu Măgean, Jim Johnston, Fred Potter, Sorin Fazakas, and Corneliu Dragu for their valuable suggestions, support, and encouragement throughout the preparation of this manuscript.

Additionally, we extend our appreciation to the Science and Education reviewers for their insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to the refinement of the final version of this paper.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Retired from Georgia-Pacific, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Cornel Hagiopol

  2. Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

    Polliana M. Leru

Authors
  1. Cornel Hagiopol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Polliana M. Leru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cornel Hagiopol.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

*In memory of our beloved Liliana, a great educator.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hagiopol, C., Leru, P.M. Scientific Truth in a Post-Truth Era: A Review*. Sci & Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00527-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00527-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation