Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a common technique/first layer of plagiarizing a text to translate it from english to eg. spanish and then from spanish to english, to get rid of the unique words the author used.
> it's a common technique/first layer of plagiarizing a text to translate it from english to eg. spanish and then from spanish to english It's also a common technique for people who don't speak English to translate it... In fact, quite a bit more common.
Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
161–170 of 263 posts
Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
#162Fake papers and plagiarism are the most blatant form of corruption. They tend to come from certain, let's say, large countries with less developed scientific cultures. Those countries need to put an end to it, because the rest of us keep having to work harder to suppress the racist impressions that we're bound to form of colleagues who look and sound like the cheats.
In more traditional scientific countries, the corruption is more subtle. Today, many groups publish every paper with half a dozen authors, and no indication of what each of them contributed. This enables the professors who run those groups to manipulate authorship more or less as they please, and have total control over who gets to have a career in science. It turns out that absolute power corrupts senior scientists as absolutely as it does other people.
No doubt there are more clever ways to game the system, that I haven't noticed. As long as million dollar grants and first-world citizenship keep being doled out for something as contrived as scientific paper authorship, corruption is inevitable.
Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
#163'Colossal information' in place of 'Big data' ... wow - so wrong.
Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
#164I 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.
It's not a, its b.
Ok b.
Hey, you copied my answer?
???
Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the cause of some of these weird terms that this HN post is discussing. I have a PhD and found it incredibly frustrating to write research papers because there was an expectation in my field to add a ton of background. That meant I had to spend a lot of time to rephrase bits and pieces of other papers where the authors had worked hard to word something very well. The professors didn’t like me quoting…
I write papers too and hate finding a new way to say "my X is a Y that does Z". Especially if it is your tenth paper on the topic and you should even sound like the previous nine times. But about three sentences into the introduction (where you explain all the background) you start going into "there is also Y's that do Z backwards". Which Y's you compare and connect with is important and says alot about how you think…
I would have hated that level of navel gazing.
Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
#166I noticed this happening in other areas a few years ago, but with faked blogs. The titles and subjects would sound interesting, but then when you tried to read them, you'd need a specialized decoder to get through the utterly baffling word replacements. But they already got their ad revenue by the time you notice the article is complete gibberish. The first one I found was about dog illnesses. They kept referring to…
I don't have a specific example at hand, but it's typically an article a few paragraphs long with really strange phrasing, so strange that it's not explainable by the author not knowing English well.
In a handful of cases, I've managed to find the original source. Common phrases are systematically replaced by ill-fitting synonyms.
I suspect the motivation is to avoid accusations of plagiarism (though I don't know what benefit the posters derive from doing this).
Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
I enjoyed finding "counterfeit consciousness" for artificial intelligence. To me it evokes a kind of science fiction that's shown up occasionally on HN[1]. [1] https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
Also “haze figuring” for cloud computing. It sounds like something you'd find in 30s, 40s, 50s sci-fi for sure! Like “visiplate” (E.E. “Doc” Smith, Heinlein) for a computer display screen. (Along with ticker tape printouts and tape reels in the far future of course.)
Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
#168Earlier 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.
Re: Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?