Post #2979466
2023-05-12 19:07 UTC
The numbers from this story are based on a laughable "fake paper detector" that literally consists of the following ONLY. Do the authors:
1) use private (non-institutional) email addresses and/or have a hospital affiliation,
and
2) have no international coauthors.
That's it.
If these criteria are met, the paper is deemed a "potential red-flag fake publication" and counted toward that 30% tally.
Replies (1)
-
@ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org 2023-05-12 19:13
Spin notwithstanding, the technical details within preprint itself make it abundantly clear that the method doesn't work. In a "juiced" test set with as many fake papers as real ones, the indicators that they use have a sensitivity of 86% and a false alarm rate of 44%. Yes, they flag 44% of the known real papers as fake. That's not a detector, it's a coinflip. This should be a profound embarrassment to everyone involved with the preprint and Science story alike. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.06.23289563v1.full.pdf