Live data from Hacker News

Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

nature.com

111–120 of 263 posts

Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

#111
post #62

Some of these tortured phrases are great. My favourites: "flag to clamor" for signal to noise "individual computerized collaborator" for PDA (personal digital assistant) "haze figuring" for cloud computing "information stockroom" for data warehouse "focal preparing unit" for CPU "discourse acknowledgement" for voice recognition "mean square blunder" for MSE (mean square error) "arbitrary right of passage" for random…

If I was in a situation where I had to write on occupational health and safety in forestry I would shamelessly appropriate "mean square blunder" and "arbitrary timberland", those are superbly above the mean square!

Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

#112

I often wonder while reading an academic paper how the writing could be as hopelessly bad as it is. This type of manipulation and plagiarism may be partially to blame, but the academic writing style has also gone completely off the rails to the point that half the journal articles being published today read as if written by some kind of paper writing AI robot even when I am quite certain that that isn't the case. And…

A friend submitted a paper to a journal in humanities. The reviewer said "his English is informal". In other words, these reviewers are asking for stilted English.

This makes me think of people smelling bad, in dark robes, wearing white powdered wigs, frantically using their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_fan

Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

#113

I have encountered something similar to this for a submission that I reviewed for a scientific journal. I will not list any names or give much detail past those generalities, but I pointed out that the authors were misusing a particular technical term. In my review I defined the term and explained it briefly. I asked the authors to revise their submission accordingly. The paper was not bad but the authors did not kno…

In your review, did you suggest the definition and explanation that they used? In this situation, would have an acknowledgment at the end have been enough? In my mind, it seems like you all had a conversation and the authors took up your suggestions as the reviewer.

Not 100% sure but I believe the word confidential implies that the review should only have been read by the editor(s) and not passed on to the authors.

Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

#114
post #83

I have encountered something similar to this for a submission that I reviewed for a scientific journal. I will not list any names or give much detail past those generalities, but I pointed out that the authors were misusing a particular technical term. In my review I defined the term and explained it briefly. I asked the authors to revise their submission accordingly. The paper was not bad but the authors did not kno…

> the authors plagiarized my definition and explanation almost word for word (from my confidential review). Is there any way the authors could have kept your definition, and somehow credited you, even anonymously? Because rephrasing definitions is the pinnacle of wasted effort, and leads to confusion - you are asking them to say what you said, but without using your words.

Yeah. How can you plagiarize a definition?

Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

#115
post #35

This is anecdotal evidence at best, but it is worth considering. I know of several individuals who were able to complete their entire Master's thesis utilizing a combination of AI generated content (GPT-3) and a paraphrasing tool. The generated text was well over 50 pages, completely bypassed all known content/plagiarism checks and was even included in the Universities "exemplary examples". To this day, it is still t…

> Master's thesis I don't doubt this at all, and I have no doubt that GPT-3 with a bit of human editing can spit out something better than the lower third of masters students at corn row colleges. Masters degrees are cash cows, which is why no one in unregulated industries cares about them. People in regulated/unionized industries also don't actually care; even educators, who at least nominally see intrinsic value in…

> Masters degrees are cash cows, which is why no one in unregulated industries cares about them. People in regulated/unionized industries also don't actually care...

People don't care about masters degrees engineering, law, business, art, etc. etc.? Try applying for many jobs without one, or with one from lower-ranking colleges.

The Chronicle of Higher Education article recently on the HN front page said that masters in some fields, they give the example of 'positive psychology', are indeed cash cows. But in the example, that degree was not part of the actual Department of Psychology, which is taken very seriously.

Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

#116
post #83

I have encountered something similar to this for a submission that I reviewed for a scientific journal. I will not list any names or give much detail past those generalities, but I pointed out that the authors were misusing a particular technical term. In my review I defined the term and explained it briefly. I asked the authors to revise their submission accordingly. The paper was not bad but the authors did not kno…

> the authors plagiarized my definition and explanation almost word for word (from my confidential review). Is there any way the authors could have kept your definition, and somehow credited you, even anonymously? Because rephrasing definitions is the pinnacle of wasted effort, and leads to confusion - you are asking them to say what you said, but without using your words.

I agree with this. You sound expert and provided a definition. I don't think we should expect serious professionals to mess around altering the words to make it look like it didn't come from the source that it did come from. In fact wouldn't that itself be plagiarism? The usual approach here is to use a phrase like "as suggested by one of our reviewers".

Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

#117
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Master's thesis I don't doubt this at all, and I have no doubt that GPT-3 with a bit of human editing can spit out something better than the lower third of masters students at corn row colleges. Masters degrees are cash cows, which is why no one in unregulated industries cares about them. People in regulated/unionized industries also don't actually care; even educators, who at least nominally see intrinsic value in…

> ... masters students at corn row colleges. First time I've heard the term "corn row colleges". Google's not bringing up anything that looks relevant. I suggest picking something else. Given that "cornrows" are a predominantly black hairstyle, the term reads like a racial slur.

No meaning in the cornfields, ie second tier state universities.

Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

#118
This is a major failure of Elsevier.

Here's "Microprocessors and Microsystems."[1] This is supposed to be about embedded systems, which is generally a no-bullshit field. I'd never heard of this journal. People read Electronic Design, EE Times, "Embedded.com", maybe Control Systems Journal, etc. Those have either articles about how to do something, or "why what we're selling is great" articles.

Now look at the article titles in Microprocessors and Microsystems.[2] Here are the first three.

- COPS: A complete oblivious processing system

- A perceptron-based replication scheme for managing the shared last level cache

- Efficient underdetermined speech signal separation using encompassed Hammersley-Clifford algorithm and hardware implementation

Now those might be legitimate, although what they're doing in an embedded systems journal isn't clear. They're all behind a paywall, so it's hard to tell if they're any good.

"Oblivious processing" is a security concept. That belongs in a journal on security and encryption, where the crypto people will know what holes to look for. (Microsoft was doing work in this area in 2013, but I don't think a product emerged. If you can make it work, some cloud computing company can use it.)

Cache management belongs in a journal on CPU design, where people who have struggled to make caches work will take a look. There are people using perceptrons for this, which makes sense; a cache has to guess which things will be reused. (If this works well, someone should be trying it in web caches such as NGINX to improve cache hit rates.)

Signal separation is an active field, but this isn't a journal where you'd expect to find articles on it. Wikipedia has a good article on signal separation. The history of that article indicates attempts to sneak in citations to sketchy articles. No idea if the Hammersley-Clifford algorithm is even relevant. (If it's a significant advance, there's commercial value in this in improving audio quality for conferencing systems.)

So these papers were all sent to a journal where the odds of getting published are good, and the odds that the editors have no idea about the subject matter is high.

Why is Elsevier even publishing this journal?

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/microprocessors-and-mi...

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/microprocessors-and-mi...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Signal_separation...

Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

#119

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?

Could you share any examples?

Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science

#120
post #3

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".

If you read the article the authors directly address this and use datasets of machine translated articles as controls.

People who don't speak English natively could use machine translation, and people plagiarizing could use machine translation. How do they distinguish (if you don't mind saving me digging into the research)?
Post reply on HN