Certainly concerning! This tendency has been reported for many years! Still going on strong! Fake it to make it!
I am not so sure about the indicators used for this study to identify potential fakes. The false alarm rate also seems to be high.
"After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010—and far larger than the 2% baseline estimated in a 2022 publishers’ group report. ...
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. ..."
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. ..."
From the abstract:
"Background
Integrity of academic publishing is increasingly undermined by fake science publications massively produced by commercial “editing services” (so-called “paper mills”). They use AI-supported, automated production techniques at scale and sell fake publications to students, scientists, and physicians under pressure to advance their careers. Because the scale of fake publications in biomedicine is unknown, we developed a simple method to red-flag them and estimate their number.
Methods
To identify indicators able to red-flagged fake publications (RFPs), we sent questionnaires to authors. Based on author responses, three indicators were identified: “author’s 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. RFP rates are increasing, suggesting higher actual fake rates than previously reported. The scale and proliferation of fake publications in biomedicine can damage trust in science, endanger public health, and impact economic spending and security. Easy-to-apply fake detection methods, as proposed here, or more complex automated methods can help prevent further damage to the permanent scientific record and enable the retraction of fake publications at scale."
Fake Publications in Biomedical Science: Red-flagging Method Indicates Mass Production (open access)
Columns show the number of papers by month.
No comments:
Post a Comment