Wouldn't a mechanical Google search, using a DTM (Document Term Matrix) give at least a human-in-the-loop system a good chance of finding the frauds?
One obvious fraud would be to submit the paper in a different language than the original, right? But even so, DTM approaches would likely work on Google due to their multi-language search capability. -- Owen On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know about re-submission detection. A current brouhaha noted in > today's Nature, > http://www.nature.com/news/fallout-from-hailed-cloning-paper-1.13078, concerns > a paper about cloning skin cells into stem cells which was granted > expedited review and on-line publication by Cell, one of the premier > journals. So, "an anonymous online commenter noted three pairs of > duplicated images with conflicting labels in the paper", but none of the > paid editorial staff or reviewers had happened to notice these problems in > the 3 days it took them to review it or the 12 subsequent days it took to > prepare it for online publication. > > Rockefeller University Press has a system to automatically check that the > submitted graphics are not duplicates of each other, but most journals > still do manual spot checking (Nature checks 2 articles per issue on > average) if they do anything at all. Checking for duplicate submissions or > more subtle plagiarism is beyond their abilities, they're too busy > "curating" the scientific literature. > > Back to the original post, that the reviewers basically slammed papers > that they had already published is pretty sickening. The system has > nothing to prevent such crony reviewing claques even now. > > -- rec -- > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Russell Standish > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 02:14:26PM -0600, Roger Critchlow wrote: >> > Russ Abbott reposted this on g+, but it's too meritorious not to be >> > archived here: >> > >> > >> > >> http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844 >> > >> > Take published articles by highly respected authors, replace the authors >> > and institutions with fakes, resubmit to the same journals that >> originally >> > published the articles, and watch what happens. >> > >> >> What astounded me was the very low detection of resubmission >> (8%). This was in spite of the articles having been published within >> the previous two years in the _same_ journals. Obviously these must be >> large journals with multiple editors who clearly aren't across what >> their colleagues are doing. >> >> The other concerning thing is that the rejection rate of the papers >> that pass that filter is so high (89%), particularly that it is higher >> than the rejection rate for new articles submitted to. Obviously, I would >> expect >> the rejection rate to be greater than 0, but it should be less than >> the overall journal rejection rate, as the paper concerned have >> already run the gauntlett of peer review. I guess the conclusion is >> that referees were being influenced by who wrote the paper, not the >> contents. >> >> It'd be interesting to redo the experiment today - although I would >> hope that journals now have a better detection of article resubmission in >> place. >> >> Cheers >> >> -- >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >> Principal, High Performance Coders >> Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] >> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
