Academic Trivia

A group of academicians seeking fun while being engaged with other academic activities.
#AcademicTwitter #PublicationEthics #PredatoryPublishing

[Academic Trivia @Academic_Trivia]

The spoof article we have been submitting to different journals has been now published in one of the journals. We did not pay any article processing fee. And all of a sudden we got to see this! https://t.co/XBvEmjKAF8
@fake_journals @stoppredatoryj @CabellsPublish

[Retraction Watch @RetractionWatch]

A biotech company in India has sued researchers over a study they published about their COVID-19 vaccine.
https://t.co/m5T2gqpvXk

[Mu Yang, Ph.D. @mumumouse2]

Pretty sure the 2024 paper grabbed the image from "the internet" (a 2005 paper by unrelated folks)

[Retraction Watch @RetractionWatch]

“Suspicious phrases” in peer reviews point to template use.
https://t.co/kC78Tv6noo

[Retraction Watch @RetractionWatch]

Exclusive: Psychology researcher loses PhD after allegedly using husband in study and making up data https://t.co/pkyyg0GYrp

[Academic Trivia @Academic_Trivia]

This is classic! 🤣

[Elisabeth Bik @MicrobiomDigest]

Wow, this is pretty brazen.
This article (right) from He'nan University of Science and Technology copied **all data** from an article by Université du Québec authors (left), released 2 months earlier.
Found by @ImageTwinAI
#ImageForensics
https://t.co/xm9GXsyFAJ

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

This thread will expose some notable connections of the embattled Spanish "chemist" Rafael Luque.

It is a call to action to start rooting out the fraud network. It would be a mistake to treat Luque as a single funny case. Read about Luque here:

https://t.co/HcnATvWmhs

[Adam Day @ClearSkiesAdam]

Ever wanted to detect #papermills using just peer-review comments? Here's how! Thanks to @RetractionWatch @MicrobiomDigest & @gcabanac for help finding references https://t.co/mNYk9NqhlD #researchintegrity #academicpublishing

[Retraction Watch @RetractionWatch]

"Papers are being published not to be read, but in fact the researchers are hoping that nobody reads them, because if they do read them, they'll see that they're often filled with gibberish." Our Ivan Oransky on the BBC (starting at 40:00).
https://t.co/qt4wgz7ih7

[Publishing with Integrity @fake_journals]

"Papers and peer reviews with evidence of ChatGPT writing" Great initiative by @RetractionWatch, with the real kudos going to @gcabanac https://t.co/oPLdCqnWlW

[Publishing with Integrity @fake_journals]

.
Exploratory analysis of text duplication in peer-review reveals peer-review fraud and paper mills

Interesting article from @ClearSkiesAdam that says #PaperMill articles can be detected by looking at peer review reports (see abstract). Could be a game changer?
https://t.co/CmMXTxr2G4

We also note that there is a @PubPeer report on this paper: https://t.co/WnpC0vJLa6

Abstract: "Comments received from referees during peer-review were analysed to determine the rates of duplication and partial duplication. It is very unusual for 2 different referees to submit identical comments, so the rare cases where this happens are of interest. In some cases, it appears that paper-mills create fake referee accounts and use them to submit fake peer-review reports. These include comments that are copied and pasted across multiple reviews. Searching for duplication in referee comments is therefore an effective method to search for misconduct generally, since the forms of misconduct committed by paper-mills go beyond peer-review fraud. These search methods allow the automatic detection of misconduct candidates which may then be investigated carefully to confirm if misconduct has indeed taken place. There are innocent reasons why referees might share template reports, so these methods are not intended to automatically diagnose misconduct."

[Guillaume Cabanac ⟨here and elsewhere⟩ @gcabanac]

🤖 So #ChatGPT wrote the first sentence of this @ElsevierConnect article. Any other parts of the article too? How come none of the coauthors, Editor-in-Chief, reviewers, typesetters noticed? How can this happen with regular peer-review? https://t.co/C4vX317zYV

[Academic Trivia @Academic_Trivia]

@fake_journals Yes. All bad journals need not be predatory.

[Publishing with Integrity @fake_journals]

Really interesting article from @PavlovicDavor & @Gundrylab, writing in @TimesHigherEd. It makes a lot of interesting (and balanced) viewpoints. We found this one particularly interesting https://t.co/OSOpGcd1t2

[India Research Watch (IRW) @IRWatchdog]

IIT Madras is not immune to the race to the bottom. May they be as good as Lovely Professional University someday (which files more patents than all IITs combined this year)

[Elisabeth Bik @MicrobiomDigest]

Science integrity sleuths welcome legal aid fund for whistleblowers
A Silicon Valley investor has pledged $1 million to help pay the legal costs of scientists being sued for flagging fraudulent research
@HollyElse writes @ScienceInsider
https://t.co/TJqjjl0p3O

[Elisabeth Bik @MicrobiomDigest]

29 papers from a neurology professor at @RushUniversity @RushMedical have raised concerns on @Pubpeer. Papers involve research on cinnamon to treat brain disorders.
Leonid Schneider summarizes the concerns at @4BetterScience

[Publishing with Integrity @fake_journals]

"Editorial board members resign from obstetrics journal to protest handling of allegations" | @RetractionWatch https://t.co/tNEcUJDmv3

[For Better Science @4BetterScience]

Kalipada Pahan – Cinnamon Boy in Rush https://t.co/81sCuGVKT2

[lexbouter.bsky.social @LexBouter]

"Systematic review search reporting is poor...Only 22 (4.9%) database searches reported all six PRISMA-S items. Forty-seven (10.4%) database searches could be reproduced within 10% .."
https://t.co/hr0GUJByeS
@mlrethlefsen @cochranecollab @PRISMAStatement