There follows a guest post by Daily Sceptic contributing editor Mike Hearn about the ongoing problem of apparently respectable scientific journals publishing computer-generated ‘research’ papers that are complete gibberish.
The publisher Springer Nature has released an “expression of concern” for more than four hundred papers they published in the Arabian Journal of Geosciences. All these papers supposedly passed through both peer review and editorial control, yet no expertise in geoscience is required to notice the problem:
The paper can’t decide if it’s about organic pollutants or the beauty of Latin dancing, and switches instantly from one to the other half way through the abstract.
The publisher claims this went through about two months of review, during which time the editors proved their value by assigning it helpful keywords:
If you’re intrigued by this fusion of environmental science and fun hobbies, you’ll be overjoyed to learn that the full article will only cost you about £30 and there are many more available if that one doesn’t take your fancy, e.g.
- Distribution of earthquake activity in mountain area based on embedded system and physical fitness detection of basketball
- Detection of rare earth elements in groundwater based on SAR imaging algorithm and fatigue intervention of dance training
- Detection of PM2.5 in mountain air based on fuzzy multi-attribute and construction of folk sports activities
- Characteristics of heavy metal pollutants in groundwater based on fuzzy decision making and the effect of aerobic exercise on teenagers
Background
Peer-reviewed science is the type of evidence policymakers respect most. Nonetheless, a frequent topic on this site is scientific reports containing errors so basic that any layman can spot them immediately, leading to the question of whether anyone actually read the papers before publication. An example is the recent article by Imperial College London, published in Nature Scientific Reports, in which the first sentence was a factually false claim about public statistics.
Evidence is now accruing that it’s indeed possible for “peer reviewed” scientific papers to be published which have not only never been reviewed by anybody at all, but might not have even been written by anybody, and that these papers can be published by well known firms like Springer Nature and Elsevier. In August we wrote about the phenomenon of nonsensical “tortured phrases” that indicate the usage of thesaurus-driven paper rewriting programs, probably the work of professional science forging operations called “paper mills”. Thousands of papers have been spotted using this technique; the true extent of the problem is unknown. In July, I reported on the prevalence of Photoshopped images and Chinese paper-forging efforts in the medical literature. Papers are often found that are entirely unintelligible, for example this paper, or this one whose abstract ends by saying, “Clean the information for the preparation set for finding valuable highlights to speak to the information by relying upon the objective of the undertaking.” – a random stream of words that means nothing.
Where does this kind of text come from?
The most plausible explanation is that these papers are being auto-generated using something called a context-free grammar. The goal is probably to create the appearance of interest in the authors they cite. In academia promotions are linked to publications and citations, creating a financial incentive to engage in this sort of metric gaming. The signs are all there: inexplicable topic switches half way through sentences or paragraphs, rampant grammatical errors, the repetitive title structure, citations of real papers and so on. Another sign is the explanation the journal supplied for how it occurred: the editor claims that his email address was hacked.
In this case, something probably went wrong during the production process that caused different databases of pre-canned phrases to be mixed together incorrectly. The people generating these papers are doing it on an industrial scale, so they didn’t notice because they don’t bother reading their own output. The buyers didn’t notice – perhaps they can’t actually read English, or don’t exist. Then the journal didn’t notice because, apparently, it’s enough for just one person to get “hacked” for the journal to publish entire editions filled with nonsense. And finally none of the journal’s readers noticed either, leading to the suspicion that maybe there aren’t any.
The volunteers spotting these papers are uncovering an entire science-laundering ecosystem, hiding in plain sight.
We know randomly generated papers can get published because it’s happened hundreds of times before. Perhaps the most famous example is SCIgen, “a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations” using context-free grammars. It was created in 2005 by MIT grad students as a joke, with the aim to “maximize amusement, rather than coherence“. SCIgen papers are buzzword salads that might be convincing to someone unfamiliar with computer science, albeit only if they aren’t paying attention.
Despite this origin, in 2014 over 120 SCIgen papers were withdrawn by leading publishers like the IEEE after outsiders noticed them. In 2020 two professors of computer science observed that the problem was still occurring and wrote an automatic SCIgen detector. Although it’s only about 80% reliable, it nonetheless spotted hundreds more. Their detector is now being run across a subset of new publications and finds new papers on a regular basis.
Root cause analysis
On its face, this phenomenon is extraordinary. Why can’t journals stop themselves publishing machine-generated gibberish? It’s impossible to imagine any normal newspaper or magazine publishing thousands of pages of literally random text and then blaming IT problems for it, yet this is happening repeatedly in the world of academic publishing.
The surface level problem is that many scientific journals appear to be almost or entirely automated, including journals that have been around for decades. Once papers are submitted, the reviewing, editorial and publishing process becomes handled by computers. If the system stops working properly editors can seem oblivious – they routinely discover they published nonsense only because people who don’t even subscribe to their journal complained about it.
Strong evidence for this comes from the “fixes” journals present when put under pressure. As an explanation for why the 436 “expressions of concern” wouldn’t be repeated the publisher said:
The dedicated Research Integrity team at Springer Nature is constantly searching for any irregularities in the publication process, supported by a range of tools, including an in-house-developed detection tool.
The same firm also proudly trumpeted in a press release that:
Springer announces the release of SciDetect, a new software program that automatically checks for fake scientific papers. The open source software discovers text that has been generated with the SCIgen computer program and other fake-paper generators like Mathgen and Physgen. Springer uses the software in its production workflow to provide additional, fail-safe checking.
A different journal proposed an even more ridiculous solution: ban people from submitting papers from webmail accounts. The more obvious solution of paying people to read the articles before they get published is apparently unthinkable – the problem of fake auto-generated papers is so prevalent, and the scientific peer review process so useless, that they are resorting to these feeble attempts to automate the editing process.
Diving below the surface, the problem may be that journals face functional irrelevance in the era of search engines. Clearly nobody can be reading the Arabian Journal of Geosciences, including its own editors, yet according to an interesting essay by Prof Igor Pak “publisher’s contracts with [university] libraries require them to deliver a certain number of pages each year“. What’s in those pages? The editors don’t care because the libraries pay regardless. The librarians don’t care because the universities pay. The universities don’t care because the students and granting bodies pay. The students and granting bodies don’t care because the government pays. The government doesn’t care because the citizens pay, and the citizens DO care – when they find out about this stuff – but generally can’t do anything about it because they’re forced to pay through taxes, student loan laws and a (socially engineered) culture in which people are told they must have a degree or else they won’t be able to get a professional job.
This seems to be zombie-fying scientific publishing. Non-top tier journals live on as third party proof that some work was done, which in a centrally planned economy has value for justifying funding requests to committees. But in any sort of actual market-based economy many of them would have disappeared a long time ago.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I agree with the article.
But the NHS isn’t about the patients. I would have said it’s more about the staff, but then they were threatened with job losses at one point, for failure to have the magic jab.
The NHS is all about the NHS. To me, it’s a self perpetuating entity, a perpetual motion machine, looking after itself first and foremost. .
It’s a bloatocracy… all bureaucracies, after a certain point, exist to further their own needs, not those of the suckers who pay for it.
There is a mobile death chamber set up in our local Tesco car park. Full on masks, visors and aprons if you will. I roar with laughter when driving by.
Worth a thumbs up for that alone.
Jabbatoir?
Mobile jabbatoir.
I prefer Jabatorium.
No stab, no luck!
Come to our exciting mobile perforatorium!
The next extremely rare side-effect could be yours!
Stabbatoir?
Any Zyklon B canisters in evidence?
I’ll never take part again. No mask, no jab, no anything. And they can’t make me. No law in the land can make me or anyone take part. i AM A FREE MAN.
As is anyone reading this. Know your rights.
Time for the NHS to get back to normal killing people at lower rates.
The first time I was confronted by an NHS Perspex screen I was in a wheelchair. The receptionist’s loudspeaker was therefore far above my head and I couldn’t make out a word she said. The NHS is run by people functionally equivalent to morons.
Happily have had only 2 visits to the GP during this nonsense. Even 2 weeks back had to stand 2 feet from receptionist and wait to be called. My gambit? Simply say, “I’m sorry, I’m rather deaf, I can’t hear you with your mask on”. And they slip it down.
Wouldn’t be so bad were it not for the fact that masks are not medically proven to work, and most are in fact wearing surgical splash masks, designed to make sure those working in operating theatres do not ingest bits of patient.
https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-150-comparative-studies-and-articles-on-mask-ineffectiveness-and-harms/
That’s being very rude about morons
“We urge the NHS to uphold the principle of evidence-based medicine in its policies and practices. We also remind the CEOs that NHS staff are required to uphold the core principles of the NHS Constitution, medical ethics and professional codes of practice, including the right to informed consent. Denying staff, patients and visitors the right to decline a medical intervention (a face mask) without coercion, penalty or restriction is in breach of these principles and codes.”
Surely some jest or April Fool here? There isn’t a cat in Hell’s chance of any of these things being observed.
Sunk without trace, and presumed lost and unsalvageable:-
The good Doctor and her organisation doubtless mean well, and are to be commended for their campaigns, but I fear that they are heavily-outnumbered by the rest of the NHS; lock, stock and injecting barrel. The moment has long since gone when any of the core principles of ethical medicine were paramount in the NHS, in all its branches and manifestations. Of course, they were never of the slightest interest or relevance to the vast cadres of non-medical people, or the quangos like NHS Providers and the other parasitic organisations that prey upon the public purse via the NHS, and it is these that seem to determine “policy without ethics”.
The whole thing is beyond redemption.
Thank you for this important work Elizabeth – you have been a giant throughout this entire episode and many in this country are in your debt.
I posted the following yesterday, here: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/25/government-fear-propaganda-made-covid-worse-says-report/#comment-810067
Thanks to all who replied.
I should have added yesterday that the above bulletin was sent to staff at the UCLH Admin block in Euston. This admin block is not even part of the main hospital and is attached ‘physically’ in no way; in fact, it’s on the opposite side of the Euston Road.
If they are not going to drop restrictions for the staff who aren’t even in the hospital, there is no chance of them dropping them for patients.
As I said yesterday… TWATS!
EVERYTHING this bunch of losers did made matters worse. And then they compounded it by making clear that despite having terrified a huge chunk of the country with Covid, that they were not in the slightest worried about catching it.
Neither was I, but that’s not the point. Johnson needs to go, ASAP. And no, I have no idea of a replacement. But Bunter has to go.
TWATS
Total Worrywarts And Timorously Stupid?
We understand some colleagues may feel anxious about the change to social distancing. If you would prefer to continue to maintain a distance of 2 metres and/or wear a mask at your desk, your decision will be respected.
Naturally makes one think of
A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; […]
The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.
[Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures, p. 1]
One should note that this implies that the author(s) don’t believe that there is actually any threat the complacent people could succumb to. Otherwise, tricking them into believing that there was obviously wouldn’t be necessary.
Someone should sue this unatural offspring of a gay marriage because he has a duty of care to keep his employees safe. And trying to frighten them as hard as possible certainly doesn’t amount to that.
The National Health Service has (with many other public sector institutions, it seems) forgotten who it SERVES…
It serves itself! There are a number of national bodies like this, which first and foremost serve their own interests. The CofE is another one.
Who on earth still expects high-quality care from the Hell Service?
Yes, I though ‘What?’ on reading that bit!
When it was first created, the National Health Service was accessible to all. That was its USP. It was never touted as “the best”. Typical Socialism.
Care and compassion. Like ‘Jenny’s’ care and compassion when she spurned the pleas of a husband desperate to be with his dying wife, and left him to to sob in the car park.
And she considered herself virtuous. And so did the foul Labour Party who cited her as an example.
May all the NHS Jennies burn in Hell, and their admirers along with them.
I didn’t read the article. Something about NHS and masks. Fine. I have an opinion. Masks are pure evil. They are the denial of the face, of the breath, of humanity itself. Masks are of the devil. If you love to wear a mask, heck, if you even wear one under duress, you are worshipping Satan. Ooooh, did I go too far?
Not nearly far enough, Dloop.
Masks freak me out. People who wear them are monsters and I want nothing to do with them.
I’m currently avoiding using the service until they remove any ‘health’ requirements.
The NHS is not fit for purpose.
Why would the NHS wish for a return to normality, when that might mean its record over the last 26 months coming under increased scrutiny?
Far better to say ‘overworked, under stress and don’t want to be infected by the public’.
Are masks no longer required by NHS from Monday? It said so on DS but I have found nothing about it anywhere else.
Well, I’ve got to go for a blood test on Tuesday so will see what it’s like. I had a genuine reason to claim an exemption under the government’s previous ‘rules’, but I’m no longer prepared to play that game. If I get asked to wear a mask, the answer will be a simple ‘no’ – I’m not justifying it.
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed a significant increase in GPs sending you for blood tests? It seems to have become the standard response to anything and everything over the past few years (assuming you can actually contact a GP, of course). Presumably it’s favoured to try to avoid actually seeing their scummy patients.
Just been announced for Wales. See link below.
Covid in Wales: Hospital mask rule ends as emergency law expires
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-61594861
At f****ing last!
Yes, and it is the medical fraternity who should, of all people understand that masking, so-called vaccination, and all the othe virtue signalling is pointless. Yet they perpetuate the facade of competence. Want a blood test? Only if you’re double vaxxed. Want to see a doctor? Let’s see you vax certificate first. This is Australia, and I’m sure it’s very similar elsewhere. How can you respect people who think that this will ‘protect’ them?
I went for a pelvic scan yesterday at our small local hospital in a rural town. As ever, it was virtually empty.
I had informed the receptionist on the phone that I did not wear masks and I had resurrected my exemption lanyard but I was still challenged and made to wait in a corridor. A man (role unclear; I assumed some sort of porter) fetched me for the scan and said, ‘You’re not wearing a mask’. I replied, ‘No; I don’t’. He reported this to the radiographer who accepted that I was exempt but then said, ‘We wear them to protect you’. I said, ‘Please don’t. I have never worried about Covid for a moment’. She looked shocked. This is the most sparsely populated county in England and virtually everyone who has died of Covid has been in a care home.
There then followed a fraught interaction in which I refused to remove my lower garments in the presence of a male and had to wait until another female could be found; it seems that a female radiographer is not allowed to be alone with another female ‘for our protection’ but women are expected to take their knickers off in front of male assistants.
The attitude of NHS staff is now blatantly hostile towards patients. This seems to be particularly the case the lower down the staff hierarchy they are and the more educated and insistent on their rights the patients are. They have been so brainwashed by the ‘clap for the NHS’ nonsense that they think they are gods. A complete culture change is required.
The sainted NHS could do with a good dose of the clap
Very well said, as someone who has a 90+ year old relative in hospital—stressful enough-the stress of dealing with the rules and regulations of the hospital is nearly unbearable—particularly if ,like my wife and I, you are defying them. btw ,we shared a platform in Lisburn-I spoke re schools and children.
The majority of NHS staff will find it impossible to relinquish the “Skivers Charter” of Covid-1984.
I visited our Dentist yesterday. The entrance was, as usual, locked. I pressed the bell. ” Have you got a mask?” came the voice from the speaker by the door.” Please put it on”. I walked into a totally empty waiting room, the receptionists, masked up, sitting behind perspex, asked me to take a seat. I made a move to remove my coat and hang it up on the nearby pegs. “Don’t leave your coat there!” On entering the treatment room, to be “greeted” by a dentist dressed in enough PPE to perform a heart by-pass, I was told to deposit coat and bag in a ‘unibox’ on the floor. On returning to Reception to make my next appointment I had to stand inside the square carefully painted on the floor.
When will this nonsense ever end?
Specsavers is still pulling the same crap too. I complained in person then via email. Got the expected copy & paste reply about “safety of our staff and customers” etc. Last time I’ll ever go there. Idiots.
Oops I clicked on “thumbs up” and then also accidentally on “thumbs down” but it doesn’t seem to have registered that thank goodness. Was going to say I am well overdue for an eye test (at Specsavers) and I probably really do need stronger glasses, but I have been concerned about going for precisely the reasons you have said. I’ve been thinking I’ll just go and buy some of those reading glasses you can get in various shops. Undoubtedly cheaper too.
I’ve just posted this on Facebook. It was in response to a Stand in the Park post about finding an alternative sort of practitioner.
” I have actually just this week taken myself off my doctor’s/surgery’s list. I’d been thinking about it for a while, wrote the letter and then let it sit around while I thought some more. Things kept popping up that made me think it was the right thing to do, so I went ahead and took the letter in to my surgery. The last time I went was last year to pick up a fit note for my husband, who had broken his collar bone, and that was bad enough – masks on everyone of course (except me), door to the surgery locked and you had to ring a bell and then someone came to speak to you. Chairs removed from the foyer waiting area. I have felt for a long time that I never wanted to visit a “normal” doctor again, let alone a hospital. When I took the letter in this week, the first thing that hit me was the big notice on the door saying you’ve got to wear a mask. A lady in a wheelchair was sat just inside, masked, and anyone else I saw was masked. You can now walk in to the surgery but there are hardly any chairs in the waiting room. The receptionist, when she finally deigned to speak to me, had a mask over one ear, which she then put over her other ear while telling me I had to wear a mask. I said – “well this is the last time I’ll be coming in and I just wanted to hand in this letter. And I’m exempt anyway.” Then she asked if it needed a reply and I said yes. Then she asked if it was a letter wanting a telephone appointment, and I said no but it did need a reply. I felt like she was wanting me to tell her what it was about but I wasn’t going to. Then I smiled (genuinely as I didn’t want to be antagonistic), said thank you and left. I got home about 4 hours later and it wasn’t long before I got a phone call from the practice manager wanting to chat to me about it. She’d even tried to ring me earlier so the doctor must have read it pretty quick. She was very “nice” about the whole thing, though rather patronising, sounding concerned for my health, but I thought – “I won’t be persuaded to change my mind”. I don’t trust their “niceness”. I just think they wanted to keep me on their books and get paid for having me there! I walked away with a great feeling of relief that I’d done it!”
The NHS is a public service. There to serve the public. Simple. To help us have the healthies lives possible.
We so NOT exist to save the NHS
SAJ can make (force) them to co-operate if he wants. I suggest he stops messing about and sorts it. He can do it with a stroke of his pen.
Stop pissing about SAJ, and get it done.