Friam

The fate of published articles, submitted again

Classic

List

Threaded

8 messages Options

Roger Critchlow-2

The fate of published articles, submitted again

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.

-- rec --

============================================================
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

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: The fate of published articles, submitted again

Interesting, the article was published in 1982.

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> 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.

-- rec --

Russ Abbott

Re: The fate of published articles, submitted again

I hadn't noticed the publication date. Embarrassing on my part.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My 2-page paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: http://goo.gl/YATTz

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting, the article was published in 1982.

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> 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.

-- rec --

============================================================
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

Stephen Guerin

Re: The fate of published articles, submitted again

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

Yes, but by different authors :-)

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting, the article was published in 1982.

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> 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.

-- rec --

============================================================
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

Russell Standish-2

Re: The fate of published articles, submitted again

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

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 [hidden email]
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

Parks, Raymond

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: The fate of published articles, submitted again

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

If the experiment were to be performed today, I would expect roughly the same results.

Ray Parks

Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager

V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084

NIPR: [hidden email]

SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

On May 29, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

I hadn't noticed the publication date. Embarrassing on my part.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My 2-page paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: http://goo.gl/YATTz

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting, the article was published in 1982.

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> 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.

-- rec --

============================================================
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

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: The fate of published articles, submitted again

In reply to this post by Russell Standish-2

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 <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
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

Owen Densmore

Re: The fate of published articles, submitted again

Administrator

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
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