Ike Antkare, His Publications, and Those of His Disciples

Antkare, Ike

doi:10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0018

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The features of such classifiers include statistics on words (Amancio, 2015; Avros & Volkovich, 2018; Lavoie & Krishnamoorthy, 2010; Williams & Giles, 2015) or compression factor (Dalkilic et al, 2006), as the theory of information states that random texts are less prone to compression than genuine ones. This method is challenged when a scammer rewrites passages or includes genuine text (Antkare, 2020, p. 186).…”

Section: How To Detect Computer‐generated Papers?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As opposed to the three previous methods, this citation‐based method does not require any example of generated papers or any knowledge on the associated grammar. However, this method is challenged when a scammer inserts his/her own references in the generated text (Antkare, 2020, p. 181).…”

Section: How To Detect Computer‐generated Papers?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These references from nonsensical papers effectively count in bibliographic databases such as Google Scholar. The BEIESP bibliographies overlap and share some common references from recurring authors, suggesting a citation cartel aiming at h‐index manipulation (Antkare, 2020).…”

Section: Scientometric Study Of the Nonsensical Scigen‐generated Publ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a long tradition of building such grammar‐based generators, the most visible ones being the Dada Engine 2 (Bulhak, 1996) with the “pomo” grammar producing “postmodern verbiage,” Mathgen, 3 SCIgen‐Physics, 4 and the Small Business Innovation Research 5 (SBIR) grant proposal generator. Besides amusement, tricksters have generated SCIgen “papers” to fool academia: CV padding (Van Noorden, 2014b), h‐index gaming (Delgado López‐Cózar et al, 2014; Labbé, 2010), generation of pseudo‐scientific lorem ipsum filler for predatory journal and conference websites (Antkare, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature

Cabanac

Labbé

2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow-up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2-fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar-based computer-generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen-papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen-papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer-review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish. | INTRODUCTIONScience is a cumulative process: new discoveries and developments build on the body of literature. The quality and credibility of future scientific results depend on the soundness of the past published research. It also influences the trust people place in science.And yet, despite having passed peer-review, nonsensical published papers get retracted regularly. More than 120 nonsensical papers in the field of engineering were retracted from major publishers such as IEEE and Springer (Van Noorden, 2014b). These passed peerreview, were included in conference proceedings, and distributed for a fee on the publishers' platforms. Any reader with cursory knowledge in engineering instantly notices the nonsensical nature of these papers: They were generated by SCIgen, 1 a software designed by three MIT PhD students in 2005 to "maximize amusement rather than coherence" (Ball, 2005). It takes as input authors' names and generates meaningless sentences full of technical jargon, diagrams with random data, and nonexisting references with random titles and venues. It

show abstract

Section: How To Detect Computer‐generated Papers?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How To Detect Computer‐generated Papers?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scientometric Study Of the Nonsensical Scigen‐generated Publ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature

Cabanac

Labbé

2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The rise of hyperprolific authors in computer science: characterization and implications

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gaming of citation and authorship in academic journals: a warning from medicine

Macdonald

2022

Social Science Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of quantitative performance indicators to measure quality in academic publishing has undercut peer review’s qualitative assessment of articles submitted to journals. The two might have co-existed quite amicably were the most common indicator, citation, on which the journal impact factor is based, not been so susceptible to gaming. Gaming of citations is ubiquitous in academic publishing and referees are powerless to prevent it. The article gives some indication of how the citation game is played. It then moves on from academic publishing in general to look at academic publishing in medicine, a discipline in which authorship is also gamed. Many authors in medicine have made no meaningful contribution to the article that bears their names, and those who have contributed most are often not named as authors. Author slots are openly bought and sold. The problem is magnified by the academic publishing industry and by academic institutions, pleased to pretend that peer review is safeguarding scholarship. In complete contrast, the editors of medicine’s leading journals are scathing about just how ineffectual is peer review in medicine. Other disciplines should take note lest they fall into the mire in which medicine is sinking.

show abstract

Ike Antkare, His Publications, and Those of His Disciples

Cited by 4 publications

References 31 publications

Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature

Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature

The rise of hyperprolific authors in computer science: characterization and implications

The gaming of citation and authorship in academic journals: a warning from medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About