lingo.lol is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A place for linguists, philologists, and other lovers of languages.

Server stats:

70
active users

#retracted

1 post1 participant0 posts today

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies nature.com/articles/d41586-024 “We are just observing that in some bibliographies, the references have been #retracted or withdrawn, meaning that the paper may be unreliable,” Cabanac says. He calls his tool a #FeetofClay Detector, referring to an analogy, originally from the Bible, about statues or edifices that collapse because of their weak clay foundations.”

www.nature.comExclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studiesData from giant project show how withdrawn research propagates through the literature.

Egregious examples of #artificial #intelligence that have recently made their way into #scientific #journals, shine a light on the wave of 💥AI-generated text and images washing over the academic publishing industry.💥

Several experts who track down problems in studies told AFP that the rise of AI has turbocharged the existing problems in the multi-billion-dollar sector.

All the experts emphasized that AI programs such as ChatGPT can be a helpful tool for writing or translating papers—if thoroughly checked and disclosed.

But that was not the case for recent cases that somehow snuck past peer review, such as:
🔹An infographic of a rat with a preposterously large penis.
🔹Another showing human legs with way too many bones.
🔹An introduction that starts: "Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic".

It is not always so easy to spot the use of AI.
-- But one clue is that ChatGPT tends to favor certain words.

Andrew Gray, a librarian at University College London, trawled through millions of papers searching for the overuse of words such as #meticulous, #intricate or #commendable.

He determined that at least
💥60,000 papers involved the use of AI in 2023
—over one percent of the annual total.

"For 2024 we are going to see very significantly increased numbers," Gray told AFP.

Meanwhile, more than
⭐️13,000 papers were #retracted last year, by far the most in history, according to the US-based group Retraction Watch.

AI has allowed the bad actors in scientific publishing and academia to "industrialize the overflow" of "#junk" papers, Retraction Watch co-founder Ivan Oransky told AFP.

Such bad actors include what are known as #paper #mills.

These "scammers"
♦️sell authorship to researchers, pumping out vast amounts of very poor quality, plagiarized or fake papers, said Elisabeth Bik, a Dutch researcher who detects scientific image manipulation.

Two percent of all studies are thought to be published by paper mills,
but the rate is "exploding" as AI opens the floodgates, Bik told AFP.

This problem was highlighted when academic publishing giant Wiley purchased troubled publisher Hindawi in 2021.

Since then, the US firm has retracted more than 11,300 papers related to special issues of Hindawi, a Wiley spokesperson told AFP.

Wiley has now introduced a "paper mill detection service" to detect AI misuse—which itself is powered by AI.

phys.org/news/2024-08-junk-ai-

phys.orgFlood of 'junk': How AI is changing scientific publishingAn infographic of a rat with a preposterously large penis. Another showing human legs with way too many bones. An introduction that starts: "Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic".
Replied in thread

@jacomyma @tito

Indeed.

Here's an example of the nightmare authors face when they realise a "bug" (here a biochemical one) and put a lot of efforts in making things right.

"the whole #paper is wiped from the record once it is #retracted, including the bits that are still valid and useful."

This is more than 10 years ago, but I fear this hasn't much improved for most #scientificPublishers.

#scientificPublishing @academicchatter

retractionwatch.com/2013/10/29

Poor visibility of #retracted articles: a problem that should no longer be ignored

👉 Christophe Boudry and colleagues call for better identification of #retractedarticles on publishers’ websites and academic databases to avoid propagating scientific error

bmj.com/content/381/bmj-2022-0

The BMJ · Poor visibility of retracted articles: a problem that should no longer be ignoredChristophe Boudry and colleagues call for better identification of retracted articles on publishers’ websites and academic databases to avoid propagating scientific error Article retraction—the withdrawal of an article published in an academic journal1—is “a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to articles that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon.”2 Although retractions are still rare, with around five retractions per 10 000 articles published,345 rates have increased (box 1).378 Retraction rates were high in the early, acute phase of the covid-19 pandemic14—up to four times higher than during outbreaks of other infectious diseases such as HIV, H1N1 influenza, or Ebola.15 However, the rate is now estimated to be “consistent with the expected overall rate of retraction.”16 Box 1 ### Rise in retractions of biological and medical science research articles Retraction rates vary over time with changes in fraud and error6 as well as efforts by the scientific community to detect and report them.378 Pressure to “publish or perish” in order to secure research funding may contribute to an atmosphere in which some people could be tempted to selectively report results, or worse, commit outright fraud, both of which may lead to article retraction.9 Accelerated research publication, as in the acute phase of the covid-19 crisis,101112 may be associated with less rigorous peer review,13 further increasing the risk of retraction.RETURN TO TEXT Theoretically, citations should stop as soon as articles are retracted. In fact, retractions …

Consensus of the Most Likes: a paper is about to be #retracted but will that shift public opinion?

“Some readers noted seemingly disqualifying flaws in the methods…which included a survey funded by an anti-vaccine advocate...But their concerns were largely drowned out by Twitter and Substack accounts with collective followings in the millions who cheered the finding”

chronicle.com/article/this-que

The Chronicle of Higher EducationThis Questionable Study Caught Fire in Anti-Vaccine Circles. How Did It Get Through Peer Review?By Stephanie M. Lee