Sophisticated global networks are infiltrating journals to publish fake papersFor years, sleuths who study scientific fraud have been sounding the alarm about the sheer size and sophistication of the industry that churns out fake publications. Now, an extensive investigation finds evidence of a range of bad actors profiting from fraud. The study, based on an analysis of thousands of publications and their authors and editors, shows paper mills are just part of a complex, interconnected system that includes publishers, journals, and brokers.The paper, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, paints an alarming picture. Northwestern University metascientist Reese Richardson and his colleagues identify networks of editors and authors colluding to publish shoddy or fraudulent papers, report that large organizations are placing batches of fake papers in journals, suggest brokers may serve as intermediaries between paper mills and intercepted journals, and find that the number of fake papers—though still relatively small—seems to be increasing at a rate far greater than the scientific literature generally.
pull down to refresh
related posts
211 sats \ 5 replies \ @south_korea_ln 6h
On the one hand, i want to say it's quite alarming, but on the other hand, i feel like it's just the rotten behaviour happening in a quite insulated part of the ecosystem. By design, it's not my problem. I am not proud to admit that, but that's what it is.
By default, i will never read or even consider the results from those corrupt journals. Every one knows who they are. I know the select group of journals i can trust in my field, and that's it.
It's mostly sad that if you are not part of the right groups (read, country), you'll have to struggle to be taken seriously. Because those journals are clearly associated with certain countries.
A story of have and have nots, also in science. A sad tale of privilege or lack thereof.
reply
50 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 6h
What's your view of PLOS ONE
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 6h
Probably never read a paper from there... maybe even never cited a paper from there.
I've vaguely heard of it, but a paper published there is not really something taken seriously in my field.
As a rule of thumb, "open access"-only journals for which you pay a high publication fee as an author, but nothing as a reader, have a dangerous incentive structure in the sense that they have no reason to reject papers. So even though they are solving the paywall problem of scientific dissemination, they carry this burden of proving they are non-predatory.
Now, lots of standard journals let you decide as an author if you want to pay the fee to make it open access. This already mitigates part of the problem.
reply
193 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 5h
I'm only aware of it for two reasons.
-
I was asked to referee a paper for it. That was my first exposure to it. I don't remember much, but I think the topic was in my field, so I said yes, but then when I got the paper, the techniques were totally foreign to me. Yet, the reviewing instructions were, "Review it on technical merits only, not on the novelty or importance of contribution."On one hand, i appreciated that they wanted to be open about accepting anything that was technically sound. On the other hand, there had to be some sense of contribution, right?In any case, it turns out that I actually lacked the expertise to review it from a technical perspective. But I had already agreed, so I did my best. Can't remember what the outcome was anyway.So on this incident, it left a poor impression of the journal on me.
-
There was a paper that explored social causation of gender dysphoria (as opposed to psychological or physiological) from a researcher at Brown University that stirred up some controversy and got published in PLOS ONE because I think it couldn't get published anywhere else. In my effort to understand the science behind transgenderism, I read this paper. I thought it was a pretty decent paper (for the first paper to explore a topic from that angle, anyway) that raised important questions about the causal factors for transgender identification among teenage girls. IMO it shouldn't have stirred the controversy that it did, and I was glad I got to read it.So that left a positive impression of the journal on me.
Just wondering because I had always been curious about the legitimacy of this journal.
No one in my field would take it seriously or want to publish there either (nor would I, because I would not gain any reputation or internal credit for it). But some of its principles seem good to me.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner OP 5h
I agree with you. The one big problem I see with this whole thing is that, while the fake articles are still up, a lot of people are gonna see them, and plenty will fall for it. Classic old-school marketing and political tactic.
reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 5h
Yeah, with proper PR, they might leave the ecosystem, but it's rare.
Most, if not all, of these papers don't get more than a few citations (unless they have some shady self-citation scheme going on). These papers disappear into oblivion from the moment they are published. Their only purpose is to increase someone's H-factor, satisfy a PhD graduation requirement, or some other stupid reason.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @2053456d48 3h
Kindly please put all your efforts and time in publishing some genuine papers instead of fake one...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 4h
LOL. Has become?
reply