“Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
“Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
1–10 of 109 posts
Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
#2It seems like a repeat of seo.
Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
#3It seems like a repeat of seo.
Standardised Testing Optimisation
Yes I realise this is an assignment and not an exam but Scheduled Assignment Optimisation doesn't really fit. Grumble.
Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
#4“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”
Hence, I'm afraid peer-review is still the only option left.
Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
#5Sounds a lot like what FB is planning with flagging questionable references on wiki
Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
#6For manual flagging, you can use Unfold Research to leave a review on the paper itself for anyone to see it, and you can add review tags and a description about what you think is wrong with it: https://twitter.com/UnfoldResearch/status/156099536649284812...
Tools like scite (https://scite.ai/) do automatic processing (NLP) of other papers and determine whether a reference relationships supports or rejects the paper.
Also, http://octopus.ac/ did NLP processing on papers to make a breakdown of them and extract pieces to populate the content on their website, but they seem to have removed the content on their Github since then.
Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
#7> statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu... Checking if the site connection is
secure. Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue.
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu needs to review the security of your
connection before proceeding.
That's questionable.
But I am not allowed to value my privacy and security and ask questions of Columbia.
Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
#8For manual flagging, you can use Unfold Research to leave a review on the paper itself for anyone to see it, and you can add review tags and a description about what you think is wrong with it: https://twitter.com/UnfoldResearch/status/156099536649284812... Tools like scite ( https://scite.ai/ ) do automatic processing (NLP) of other papers and determine whether a reference relationships supports or rejects the paper…
You have also got https://pubpeer.com/
Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
#9“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure” Hence, I'm afraid peer-review is still the only option left.
Peer review has issues too at the moment. From what I've read, it worked when the world was a smaller place, basically. Now, peer review is another broken cog in a machine that grew organically out of past practices and which no one really intended and no one knows how to fix.
Re: “Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”
#10Instead of just accusing that journal of being a paper mill and summarily blocking it, we look for face saving way of filtering papers.
Because in science it's totally forbidden to accuse someone of deliberate fraud. You always must find a face saving way for the authors when dismissing their paper, like "bad statistics are being used".