Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Furthermore, they’re explicitly saying that “red flagging” by their simple indicator doesn’t mean that the paper is fake, but that it merits higher scrutiny. Then they and science should change their sensationalist headline. It's ironic that a paper about fakeness of something uses a borderline misleading title.
You’re not wrong, but it is everyone’s own responsibility to read the article and not just the headline.
Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
61–70 of 105 posts
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#62The researchers in this paper use an astonishingly biased "fake paper detector", requiring only two conditions to be met for any paper to be considered "fake": 1. Use a non-institutional email address, or have a hospital affiliation, 2. Have no international co-authors. And they acknowledge 86% sensitivity and 44% specificity. It's a coin-toss which biases massively against research from outside the US and Western Eu…
No. They use 400 known fakes and 400 matched (presumed) non-fakes to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of their indicator, then apply that indicator to the full universe, then employ the estimated sensitivity and specificity to the obtained measurement to estimate the approximate actual rate of false papers. If you know the true prevalence of a disease in a population, and the sensitivity and specificity of yo…
They better have a flawless methodology, because any tiny problem is enough to ruin their analysis. And well, just flagging almost any paper not from the EU or US as fraud doesn't usually come together with a flawless methodology.
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#63The researchers in this paper use an astonishingly biased "fake paper detector", requiring only two conditions to be met for any paper to be considered "fake": 1. Use a non-institutional email address, or have a hospital affiliation, 2. Have no international co-authors. And they acknowledge 86% sensitivity and 44% specificity. It's a coin-toss which biases massively against research from outside the US and Western Eu…
No. They use 400 known fakes and 400 matched (presumed) non-fakes to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of their indicator, then apply that indicator to the full universe, then employ the estimated sensitivity and specificity to the obtained measurement to estimate the approximate actual rate of false papers. If you know the true prevalence of a disease in a population, and the sensitivity and specificity of yo…
I think this paper by Peter J Diggle [0], gives a solid methodology. Instead of treating sensitivity and specificity as fixed values using sample estimates, you can model them as each having a beta distribution. In this case these beta distributions can be found using a Bayesian treatment of Bernoulli trials.
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Furthermore, they’re explicitly saying that “red flagging” by their simple indicator doesn’t mean that the paper is fake, but that it merits higher scrutiny. Then they and science should change their sensationalist headline. It's ironic that a paper about fakeness of something uses a borderline misleading title.
You’re not wrong, but it is everyone’s own responsibility to read the article and not just the headline.
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#65> Such manuscripts threaten to corrupt the scientific literature, misleading readers and potentially distorting systematic reviews. Is treating "the scientific literature" as a single thing perhaps a habit worth giving up? As convenient as it would be to be able to just blindly trust something because of where it is published, that model hasn't shown itself to be especially robust in other cases (e.g. the news media)…
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#66I've read other stuff related to this issue. It seems to me our current system exists in a social reality for which our metrics of authenticity were not designed and it harms both credentialization -- which is recognized as a problem -- and also serious science in ways that are not readily acknowledged as a problem. Mendel, father of genetics, failed to become an accredited teacher. His work on genetics would likely…
To be honest, I know nothing other than your description and it 100% sounds like either a scam or there are some variables that are not being controlled for. I’m a little shocked that you seem to have fallen for it, unless there is just a lot more to the story…
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#67I've read other stuff related to this issue. It seems to me our current system exists in a social reality for which our metrics of authenticity were not designed and it harms both credentialization -- which is recognized as a problem -- and also serious science in ways that are not readily acknowledged as a problem. Mendel, father of genetics, failed to become an accredited teacher. His work on genetics would likely…
> Some guy who knows enough about genetics he created his own home pill to deliver genes into his gut to fix his lactose intolerance is being ignored by the world. Someone recently told me on HN that his video sounds like a scam video of a sort that is common (probably in a redacted comment). To be honest, I know nothing other than your description and it 100% sounds like either a scam or there are some variables tha…
I don't know why you would be "shocked" that I "fell for it." Most of the world thinks I'm a nutter who imagines I'm getting well from my genetic disorder and dismisses my progress as "placebo effect" -- which would give me a mind more powerful than Darth Vader -- or just deluded bullshit.
So either I understand genetics and medical stuff better than average, or I'm absolutely the kind of fool who falls for bullshit scams on the internet.
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagreed with you until the last paragraph. Lots of things authentically just rely on a high degree of trust and I suspect trying to engineer human systems to be zero trust will make them deeply pathological. But tempering our expectations while working to meaningfully improve on conditions? Aces, all for it.
I agree that zero trust is in most cases a problematic goal. It's really root-of-trust vs web-of-trust that I'm on about here. If peer review is the product then the trust should be peer to peer. It feels like we're treating the publishers themselves as an authority, which I dislike.
The publishers ostensibly occupy a role of stewardship, I suspect the model must have made sense at one point. I admit its hard to see them as much more than rent extractors these days.
The nature of trust relationships seems to trend towards aggregation and centralization. Do you have any thoughts on how a web of trust can sustain itself, or is that perhaps not a concern if a centralization appears to reflect a network concensus?
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some guy who knows enough about genetics he created his own home pill to deliver genes into his gut to fix his lactose intolerance is being ignored by the world. Someone recently told me on HN that his video sounds like a scam video of a sort that is common (probably in a redacted comment). To be honest, I know nothing other than your description and it 100% sounds like either a scam or there are some variables tha…
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a17804128/sc... I don't know why you would be "shocked" that I "fell for it." Most of the world thinks I'm a nutter who imagines I'm getting well from my genetic disorder and dismisses my progress as "placebo effect" -- which would give me a mind more powerful than Darth Vader -- or just deluded bullshit. So either I understand genetics and medical stuff better than ave…
Somewhat related anecdote: I’m reminded of a good friend who is preeminent in their field. No one would know them outside of their area of expertise, but anyone within that area of expertise (or who has learned that area of expertise from their college textbooks) knows their name. I got dinner with them over the holidays last year and they lamented that, I’m guessing based on name recognition, they receive a steady stream of communications (letters, email, etc) from laypeople who always think they have done something amazing previously thought impossible, or they have a new insight that everyone else ever has missed. Invariably my friend no longer spends time going through these because in every single of the hundreds of comms they’ve read, there’s always some confound factor or something basic the writer missed that invalidates everything. I am not an academic, but my impression is that while laypeople like you and me can brute force things and have amazing insights, mostly we’re just wrong for some reason that a trained scientist or academic would have spotted immediately.
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a17804128/sc... I don't know why you would be "shocked" that I "fell for it." Most of the world thinks I'm a nutter who imagines I'm getting well from my genetic disorder and dismisses my progress as "placebo effect" -- which would give me a mind more powerful than Darth Vader -- or just deluded bullshit. So either I understand genetics and medical stuff better than ave…
My comment was assuming you’re the average person. I don’t know you or your reputation at all and I think it’s unfair to assume some random HN poster like me should. But if most of the world thinks that, who am I to disagree? Somewhat related anecdote: I’m reminded of a good friend who is preeminent in their field. No one would know them outside of their area of expertise, but anyone within that area of expertise (or…
I've been on HN nearly 14 years. A fair number of people know something about me, though certainly not everyone.
But if most of the world thinks that, who am I to disagree?
That's a personal attack, which is a violation of HN rules.
Your entire comment is about me and a justification for dismissing me and not pertinent to the point I'm making.
I provided a source. It's got a nearly 20 minute video. You are welcome to watch it and explain to me what is wrong with it and why it's a scam and I shouldn't believe any of it.