Business
Bad Research Still Costs Good Money

I have my opinions about which academic research is worth funding with public money and which isn’t. I also understand if you couldn’t care less about what I think. But I expect we’ll all share similar feelings about research that’s actually been retracted by the academic journals where it was published.
Globally, millions of academic papers are published each year. Many – perhaps most – were funded by universities, charitable organizations, or governments. It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of those papers contain serious errors, irreproducible results, or straight-up plagiarized or false content.
Not only are those papers useless, but they clog up the system and slow down the real business of science. Keeping up with the serious literature coming out in your field is hard enough, but when genuine breakthroughs are buried under thick layers of trash, there’s no hope.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Society doesn’t need those papers and taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for their creation. The trick, however, is figuring out how to identify likely trash before we approve a grant proposal.
I just discovered a fantastic tool that can help. The good people behind the Retraction Watch site also provide a large dataset currently containing full descriptions and metadata for more than 60,000 retracted papers. The records include publication authors, titles, and subjects; reasons for the retractions; and any institutions with which the papers were associated.
Using that information, I can tell you that 798 of those 60,000 papers have an obvious Canadian connection. Around half of those papers were retracted in the last five years – so the dataset is still timely.
There’s no single Canadian institution that’s responsible for a disproportionate number of clunkers. The data contains papers associated with 168 Canadian university faculties and 400 hospital departments. University of Toronto overall has 26 references, University of British Columbia has 18, and McMaster and University of Ottawa both have nine. Research associated with various departments of Toronto’s Sick Children’s Hospital combined account for 27 retractions.
To be sure, just because your paper shows up on the list doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong. For example, while 20 of the retractions were from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, those were all pulled because they were out of date. That’s perfectly reasonable.
I focused on Canadian retractions identified by designations like Falsification (38 papers), Plagiarism (41), Results Not Reproducible (21), and Unreliable (130). It’s worth noting that some of those papers could have been flagged for more than one issue.
Of the 798 Canadian retractions, 218 were flagged for issues of serious concern. Here are the subjects that have been the heaviest targets for concerns about quality:
You many have noticed that the total of those counts comes to far more than 218. That’s because many papers touch on multiple topics.
For those of you keeping track at home, there were 1,263 individual authors involved in those 218 questionable papers. None of them had more than five such papers and only a very small handful showed up in four or five cases. Although there would likely be value in looking a bit more closely at their publishing histories.
This is just about as deep as I’m going to dig into this data right now. But the papers I’ve identified are probably just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to lousy (and expensive) research. So we’ve got an interest in identifying potentially problematic disciplines or institutions. And, thanks to Retraction Watch, we now have the tools.
Kyle Briggs over at CanInnovate has been thinking and writing about these issues for years. He suggests that stemming the crippling flow of bad research will require a serious realigning of the incentives that currently power the academic world.
That, according to Briggs, is most likely to happen by forcing funding agencies to enforce open data requirements – and that includes providing access to the programming code used by the original researchers. It’ll also be critical to truly open up access to research to allow meaningful crowd-sourced review.
Those would be excellent first steps.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Banks
Top Canadian bank studies possible use of digital dollar for ‘basic’ online payments

From LifeSiteNews
A new report released by the Bank of Canada proposed a ‘promising architecture well-suited for basic payments’ through the use of a digital dollar, though most Canadians are wary of such an idea.
Canada’s central bank has been studying ways to introduce a central bank digital currency (CBDC) for use for online retailers, according to a new report, despite the fact that recent research suggests Canadians are wary of any type of digital dollar.
In a new 47-page report titled, “A Retail CBDC Design For Basic Payments Feasibility Study,” which was released on June 13, 2025, the Bank of Canada (BOC) identified a “promising architecture well-suited for basic payments” through the use of a digital dollar.
The report reads that CBDCs “can be fast and cheap for basic payments, with high privacy, although some areas such as integration with retail payments systems, performance of auditing and resilience of the core system state require further investigation.”
While the report authors stopped short of fully recommending a CBDC, they noted it is a decision that could happen “outside the scope of this analysis.”
“Our framing highlights other promising architectures for an online retail CBDC, whose analysis we leave as an area for further exploration,” reads the report.
When it comes to a digital Canadian dollar, the Bank of Canada last year found that Canadians are very wary of a government-backed digital currency, concluding that a “significant number” of citizens would resist the implementation of such a system.
Indeed, a 2023 study found that most Canadians, about 85 percent, do not want a digital dollar, as previously reported by LifeSiteNews.
The study found that a “significant number” of Canadians are suspicious of government overreach and would resist any measures by the government or central bank to create digital forms of official money.
The BOC has said that it would continue to look at other countries’ use and development of CBDCs and will work with other “central banks” to improve so-called cross border payments.
Last year, as reported by LifeSiteNews, the BOC has already said that plans to create a digital “dollar,” also known as a central bank digital currency (CBDC), have been shelved.
Digital currencies have been touted as the future by some government officials, but, as LifeSiteNews has reported before, many experts warn that such technology would restrict freedom and could be used as a “control tool” against citizens, similar to China’s pervasive social credit system.
The BOC last August admitted that the creation of a CBDC is not even necessary, as many people rely on cash to pay for things. The bank concluded that the introduction of a digital currency would only be feasible if consumers demanded its release.
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has promised, should he ever form the government, he would oppose the creation of a digital dollar.
Contrast this to Canada’s current Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney. He has a history of supporting central bank digital currencies and in 2022 supported “choking off the money” donated to the Freedom Convoy protests against COVID mandates.
Alberta
Calgary taxpayers forced to pay for art project that telephones the Bow River

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the City of Calgary to scrap the Calgary Arts Development Authority after it spent $65,000 on a telephone line to the Bow River.
“If someone wants to listen to a river, they can go sit next to one, but the City of Calgary should not force taxpayers to pay for this,” said Kris Sims, CTF Alberta Director. “If phoning a river floats your boat, you do you, but don’t force your neighbour to pay for your art choices.”
The City of Calgary spent $65,194 of taxpayers’ money for an art project dubbed “Reconnecting to the Bow” to set up a telephone line so people could call the Bow River and listen to the sound of water.
The project is running between September 2024 and December 2025, according to documents obtained by the CTF.
The art installation is a rerun of a previous version set up back in 2014.
Emails obtained by the CTF show the bureaucrats responsible for the newest version of the project wanted a new local 403 area code phone number instead of an 1-855 number to “give the authority back to the Bow,” because “the original number highlighted a proprietary and commercial relationship with the river.”
Further correspondence obtained by the CTF shows the city did not want its logo included in the displays, stating the “City of Calgary (does NOT want to have its logo on the artworks or advertisements).”
Taxpayers pay about $19 million per year for the Calgary Arts Development Authority. That’s equivalent to the total property tax bill for about 7,000 households.
Calgary bureaucrats also expressed concern the project “may not be received well, perceived as a waste of money or simply foolish.”
“That city hall employee was pointing out the obvious: This is a foolish waste of taxpayers’ money and this slush fund should be scrapped,” said Sims. “Artists should work with willing donors for their projects instead of mooching off city hall and forcing taxpayers to pay for it.”
-
espionage2 days ago
From Sidewinder to P.E.I.: Are Canada’s Political Elites Benefiting from Beijing’s Real Estate Reach?
-
Business1 day ago
Senator wants to torpedo Canada’s oil and gas industry
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
FUBAR: How Trudeau & Trump Rewrote This Century’s Political Handbook
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta’s carbon diet – how to lose megatonnes in just three short decades
-
espionage2 days ago
FBI Buried ‘Warning’ Intel on CCP Plot to Elect Biden Using TikTok, Fake IDs, CCP Sympathizers and PRC Students—Grassley Probes Withdrawal
-
David Clinton2 days ago
Why Are Ontario’s Public Schools So Violent?
-
Energy2 days ago
Who put the energy illiterate in charge?
-
Agriculture2 days ago
Unstung Heroes: Canada’s Honey Bees are not Disappearing – They’re Thriving