Science
Related: About this forumFake scientific papers are alarmingly common
It is just too hard to believe at first, says Sabel of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg and editor-in-chief of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. Its as if somebody tells you 30% of what you eat is toxic.
His findings underscore what was widely suspected: Journals are awash in a rising tide of scientific manuscripts from paper millssecretive businesses that allow researchers to pad their publication records by paying for fake papers or undeserved authorship. Paper mills have made a fortune by basically attacking a system that has had no idea how to cope with this stuff, says Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist who studies fraudulent publishing practices. A 2 May announcement from the publisher Hindawi underlined the threat: It shut down four of its journals it found were heavily compromised by articles from paper mills.
https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common
PoindexterOglethorpe
(26,729 posts)I've been slightly aware of fake papers for some time now. I wonder if they are more common in certain sciences than others.
I think I'll ask My Son The Astronomer if he's aware of fake papers in his field. I'm going to guess the answer will be no, because there would be less incentive to publish them, and more pushback for ones which are published. Just a guess here.
niyad
(119,998 posts)Last edited Wed May 10, 2023, 07:34 AM - Edit history (1)
I went looking. Okay, looks like NIH (national institutes of health). But what I was told was garbage, so I found it hard to believe NIH actually published the garbage. Looked a little further. Thousands upon thousands of articles in their data base, and they do not swear to the validity of them. So junk can be published, and look legit because it is on the NIH website, but nobody there may have even seen it.
Beakybird
(3,391 posts)Steve_N
(1 post)"Sabels tool relies on just two indicatorsauthors who use private, noninstitutional email addresses, and those who list an affiliation with a hospital".
... or in other words: this "research" is complete and utter garbage.
RussBLib
(9,666 posts)So you are saying that the detection method used to detect garbage is garbage itself?
xocetaceans
(3,944 posts)If this preprint is publishable after peer-review, the Science article's author should go ahead then and use it to support his article.
The second question is what your complaint against the preprint specifically is. You allow your comment's reader to infer a lot, but actually say nothing other than your repeated claim of "garbage". Do you care to elaborate or is your comment set up ironically to parallel your complaint?
Bernhard A. Sabel, Emely Knaack, Gerd Gigerenzer, Mirela Bilc
...
Methods To identify indicators able to red-flagged fake publications (RFPs), we sent questionnaires to authors. Based on author responses, three indicators were identified: authors private email, international co-author and hospital affiliation. These were used to analyze 15,120 PubMed®-listed publications regarding date, journal, impact factor, and country of author and validated in a sample of 400 known fakes and 400 matched presumed non-fakes using classification (tallying) rules to red-flag potential fakes. For a subsample of 80 papers we used an additional indicator related to the percentage of RFP citations.
Results The classification rules using two (three) indicators had sensitivities of 86% (90%) and false alarm rates of 44% (37%). From 2010 to 2020 the RFP rate increased from 16% to 28%. Given the 1.3 million biomedical Scimago-listed publications in 2020, we estimate the scope of >300,000 RFPs annually. Countries with the highest RFP proportion are Russia, Turkey, China, Egypt, and India (39%-48%), with China, in absolute terms, as the largest contributor of all RFPs (55%).
Conclusions Potential fake publications can be red-flagged using simple-to-use, validated classification rules to earmark them for subsequent scrutiny.
...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.06.23289563v1