Over 100 published science journal articles just gibberish
48 replies, posted
[I]By Maxim Lott
Published March 01, 2014
FoxNews.com[/I]
[img]http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/fake%20articles%20in%20science%20journals.jpg[/img]
[I]But how could gibberish end up in respectable science papers? The man who discovered the recent frauds said it showed slipping standards among scientists. (FOXNEWS.COM)[/I]
[quote]Do scientific papers ever seem like unreadable gibberish to you? Well, sometimes they really are.
Some 120 papers published in established scientific journals over the last few years have been found to be frauds, created by nothing more than an automated word generator that puts random, fancy-sounding words together in plausible sentence structures. As a result they have been pulled from the journals that originally published them.
The fake papers are in the fields of computer science and math and have titles such as “Application and Research of Smalltalk Harnessing Based on Game-Theoretic Symmetries”; “An Evaluation of E-Business with Fin”; and “Simulating Flip-Flop Gates Using Peer-to-Peer Methodologies.” The authors of those papers did not respond to requests for comment from FoxNews.com.[/quote]
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/01/over-100-published-science-journal-articles-just-gibberish/[/url]
A likely candidate:
[url]http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/[/url]
I'm sure a fox anchor in the future will use this to put a spin on some future story.
They find any funny ones?
[QUOTE] created by nothing more than an automated word generator that puts random, fancy-sounding words together in plausible sentence structures[/QUOTE]
what do you mean, omissionary apoplexic cigány is gibberish?!
'[I]Fox News[/I]'
And there I stop caring.
[QUOTE=Limed00d;44089074]what do you mean, omissionary apoplexic cigány is gibberish?![/QUOTE]
Shocking, I know.
[editline]1st March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;44089100]'[I]Fox News[/I]'
And there I stop caring.[/QUOTE]
I used to get so much shit for saying this.
Anyway, have some different sources.
[url]http://phys.org/news/2014-02-science-publisher-gibberish-papers.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763[/url]
[url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-science-and-engineering-papers/[/url]
[editline]1st March 2014[/editline]
All of them are sourced from the Nature article.
What journals were they published in though? Hard science journals?
There are a lot of 'established journals' which are bunk.
I doubt you'd see something like this in 'Science'.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;44089128]What journals were they published in though? Hard science journals?
I doubt you'd see something like this in 'Science'.[/QUOTE]
(they obviously werent peer reviewed, i wouldnt consider this to be a major scandal. whatever published these probably wasnt respected in the slightest.)
Obviously not a peer reviewed journal, and if they were actually created by a random word generator it sounds like the journal didn't even have an editor look them over. So really nothing important going on here, Fox just trying to find a scandal in nothing.
Aren't these journals supposed to be peer reviewed? How did this happen?
reminds me of this
[video=youtube;Vt4Dfa4fOEY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt4Dfa4fOEY[/video]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44089226]Aren't these journals supposed to be peer reviewed? How did this happen?[/QUOTE]
There are shitty journals that aren't peer-reviewed, or does it very poorly. Prime example of shitty one is probably "Journal of Cosmology", which have had several articles claiming about finding alien life and bullshit like that. All picked up by major news media too, such as Fox News.
[editline]1st March 2014[/editline]
:v: My article that I wrote in collaboration with Obama, Hitler and Ron Paul : [url]http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/270/scimakelatex.32484.swebonny.obama.hitler.ron+paul.html[/url]
There I was thinking that magnets made gay marriage impossible
Reminds me of this
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair[/url]
People still can't decide if some of their papers were interesting or completely gibberish
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;44089136](they obviously werent peer reviewed, i wouldnt consider this to be a major scandal. whatever published these probably wasnt respected in the slightest.)[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that a good amount of these were in peer-reviewed journals.
I wonder if any of them use Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed tempor fermentum eleifend. Proin commodo urna sit amet felis egestas, nec adipiscing massa feugiat. Proin sagittis pellentesque urna, et venenatis nisl eleifend a. Phasellus sit amet sapien quam. Sed ut orci quis ligula sollicitudin ullamcorper. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec lobortis erat lorem, ornare bibendum nisl commodo feugiat. Integer quis magna consequat, lacinia orci at, tincidunt nibh. That would be funny.
[QUOTE=T.F.W.O.;44091900]I wonder if any of them use Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed tempor fermentum eleifend. Proin commodo urna sit amet felis egestas, nec adipiscing massa feugiat. Proin sagittis pellentesque urna, et venenatis nisl eleifend a. Phasellus sit amet sapien quam. Sed ut orci quis ligula sollicitudin ullamcorper. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec lobortis erat lorem, ornare bibendum nisl commodo feugiat. Integer quis magna consequat, lacinia orci at, tincidunt nibh. That would be funny.[/QUOTE]
Nunc est bibendum, frater.
[QUOTE=Aide;44089054]I'm sure a fox anchor in the future will use this to put a spin on some future story.[/QUOTE]
Maybe the word-generator is how FOX gets their news stories.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;44089727]:v: My article that I wrote in collaboration with Obama, Hitler and Ron Paul : [url]http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/270/scimakelatex.32484.swebonny.obama.hitler.ron+paul.html[/url][/QUOTE]
doesnt work :c
[QUOTE=Valnar;44091415]I'm pretty sure that a good amount of these were in peer-reviewed journals.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, John Horgan has a series of blog posts about this:
[URL="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/11/02/a-dig-through-old-files-reminds-me-why-im-so-critical-of-science/"]http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/11/02/a-dig-through-old-files-reminds-me-why-im-so-critical-of-science/[/URL]
[QUOTE=ThreePennyJim;44092685]Yeah, John Horgan has a series of blog posts about this:
[URL="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/11/02/a-dig-through-old-files-reminds-me-why-im-so-critical-of-science/"]http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/11/02/a-dig-through-old-files-reminds-me-why-im-so-critical-of-science/[/URL][/QUOTE]
I've heard from phds that nobody reads their papers, I guess that has some truth.
science is broken!!!!
Literally MiniTru in action. The whole automated text-writing thing, I mean.
[url=http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/42/scimakelatex.39092.Amelia+Earhart.Jimmy+Hoffa.Glenn+Miller.Lord+Lucan.Shergar.html]So that's where they've been all this time![/url]
[QUOTE=Crash155;44092069]doesnt work :c[/QUOTE]
Just generate your own:
[url]http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/[/url]
They do look pretty impressive.
i remember seeing one as an example in one of my classes,
it was about some new mathmatical formula for finding the area under a linear curve,
LITTERALLY someone wrote about how they discovered a mathmatical way to find the area under a curve accurately and it was like 3 pages of giberish, then in the peer comments just one sentence
this is just integration
[QUOTE=Swebonny;44089727]There are shitty journals that aren't peer-reviewed, or does it very poorly. Prime example of shitty one is probably "Journal of Cosmology", which have had several articles claiming about finding alien life and bullshit like that. All picked up by major news media too, such as Fox News.
[editline]1st March 2014[/editline]
:v: My article that I wrote in collaboration with Obama, Hitler and Ron Paul : [url]http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/270/scimakelatex.32484.swebonny.obama.hitler.ron+paul.html[/url][/QUOTE]
If they're not peer reviewed then they're pretty much irrelevant, right?
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44094603]If they're not peer reviewed then they're pretty much irrelevant, right?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how it exactly works, so I'm just speculating right now. But even though the quality of an article is lacking and isn't peer reviewed, an incautious person may still reference it in their scientific works. And that could potentially cause a chain of bad papers.
Peer-reviewed journals can shit out irrelevant bullshit as well, so peer-review doesn't always imply that the information in the paper is valid. And it's also what the people behind: [URL]http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/[/URL] tries to show. If you scroll down you'll find several stories about people using the generator to create "papers" that gets accepted to what seems to be respectable journals.
In conclusion, I don't think they should be seen as irrelevant, but should be taken with a grain of salt, and several scoops of salt if it claims something groundbreaking.
[QUOTE=download;44089100]'[I]Fox News[/I]'
And there I stop caring.[/QUOTE]
For fuck's sakes, it isn't even an article dealing with politics. If it was, then you'd have reason to bitch about Fox News.
The one I got is hilarious!
[url]http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/306/scimakelatex.58695.none.html[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.