11–20 of 263 posts
I've been seeing this in news articles as well. Swipe someone else's article, run it through a synonym-replacer algorithm, and have Reddit bots post it on a bunch of news subs. Presumably the thesaurus work fools Google's just-a-copy detector. It's the next step in clickbait monetization. Why settle for low-effort content when you can have no -effort content?
Maybe a future direction would be to train new models to identify plagiarism by training on this information. Use „non matching backtranslations for training classifiers. It’s again the typical cat and mouse game I guess
I wish they had kept the method secret. Getting these papers retracted is less valuable than being able to secretly keep tabs on them.
Though if they've published a convenient list of the bad papers, then, assuming other markers exist, that makes it easy for others to discover them.
I wish they had kept the method secret. Getting these papers retracted is less valuable than being able to secretly keep tabs on them.
If they are not retracted, they might get cited by other works which themselves might get cited. Suddenly this faked, nonexistent research has been "laundered" into mainstream and nobody knows anymore that there was a problem in the first place.
Some people don't have English as their native language. When such people want to write a scientific article in English they will have to use someone who can write English but probably does not know much about the research. So of course there will be articles with "Tortured Phrases".
Maybe a future direction would be to train new models to identify plagiarism by training on this information. Use „non matching backtranslations for training classifiers. It’s again the typical cat and mouse game I guess
Or someone could...read the papers.
I wish they had kept the method secret. Getting these papers retracted is less valuable than being able to secretly keep tabs on them.
What would be cool is if they'd figured out two methods, and only published one. Though if they've published a convenient list of the bad papers, then, assuming other markers exist, that makes it easy for others to discover them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they are not retracted, they might get cited by other works which themselves might get cited. Suddenly this faked, nonexistent research has been "laundered" into mainstream and nobody knows anymore that there was a problem in the first place.
I’m wondering what happened to good old reading with comprehension. Ain’t nobody got no time for that? If so, doesn’t it make those papers worthless?