Login

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Not available on photog.social.
photog.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A place for your photos and banter. Photog first is our motto Please refer to the site rules before posting.

Administered by:

Server stats:

272
active users

photog.social: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.7

#fakescience

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Public
Peter Guhl

I hate those repetitive automated #AI-powered #Science bot outlets because they are boring, not really curated, perpetuate outdated informations, sometimes mess up images, truncate text and contain dead links... but we probably need them as something to counter the flood of all those automated #FakeScience bot outlets catering to an audience which sees outdated info (aka "ancient wisdom"), messy layout and spelling, truncated text and lack of citation as signs that the claims are the truth.

Public
Hannu Ikonen, MD

statnews.com/2023/05/17/depres

"the Gallup survey of more than 5,000 adults in late February indicates that depression ... among children amid COVID-19 shutdowns and social media use, is much more widespread.” In particular, “depression rates have sharply risen among women and Black and Hispanic people.”

The ATTRIBUTION OF CAUSATION to several week to month shutdowns -- as opposed to DEATH, DISABILITY, STRAINED INEQUITY, LATE STAGE CAPITALISM -- is appalling.

STATDepression hits new high among Americans, per surveyMore than a quarter of American adults are depressed, a 10% surge from nearly a decade ago, according to the latest Gallup survey.
#COVID19#FakeScience#Gaslighting
Public *
Patrick Duffy

"Integrity of academic publishing is increasingly undermined by fake science publications massively produced by commercial “editing services” (so-called “paper mills”). They use AI-supported, automated production techniques at scale and sell fake publications to students, scientists, and physicians under pressure to advance their careers.[...]the scale of fake publications in biomedicine is unknown..."
#ai #fakescience #bio

medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/20

medRxiv · Fake Publications in Biomedical Science: Red-flagging Method Indicates Mass ProductionBackground Integrity of academic publishing is increasingly undermined by fake science publications massively produced by commercial “editing services” (so-called “paper mills”). They use AI-supported, automated production techniques at scale and sell fake publications to students, scientists, and physicians under pressure to advance their careers. Because the scale of fake publications in biomedicine is unknown, we developed a simple method to red-flag them and estimate their number. Methods To identify indicators able to red-flagged fake publications (RFPs), we sent questionnaires to authors. Based on author responses, three indicators were identified: “author’s private email”, “international co-author” and “hospital affiliation”. These were used to analyze 15,120 PubMed®-listed publications regarding date, journal, impact factor, and country of author and validated in a sample of 400 known fakes and 400 matched presumed non-fakes using classification (tallying) rules to red-flag potential fakes. For a subsample of 80 papers we used an additional indicator related to the percentage of RFP citations. Results The classification rules using two (three) indicators had sensitivities of 86% (90%) and false alarm rates of 44% (37%). From 2010 to 2020 the RFP rate increased from 16% to 28%. Given the 1.3 million biomedical Scimago-listed publications in 2020, we estimate the scope of >300,000 RFPs annually. Countries with the highest RFP proportion are Russia, Turkey, China, Egypt, and India (39%-48%), with China, in absolute terms, as the largest contributor of all RFPs (55%). Conclusions Potential fake publications can be red-flagged using simple-to-use, validated classification rules to earmark them for subsequent scrutiny. RFP rates are increasing, suggesting higher actual fake rates than previously reported. The scale and proliferation of fake publications in biomedicine can damage trust in science, endanger public health, and impact economic spending and security. Easy-to-apply fake detection methods, as proposed here, or more complex automated methods can help prevent further damage to the permanent scientific record and enable the retraction of fake publications at scale. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement The study was funded by the Otto-v.-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Germany ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
SearchLive feeds
About