Over 100 published science journal articles just gibberish


Fox News:

Over 100 published science journal articles just gibberish

Do scientific papers ever seem like unreadable gibberish to you? Well, sometimes they really are.

Some 120 papers published in established scientific journals over the last few years have been found to be frauds, created by nothing more than an automated word generator that puts random, fancy-sounding words together in plausible sentence structures. As a result they have been pulled from the journals that originally published them.

The fake papers are in the fields of computer science and math and have titles such as “Application and Research of Smalltalk Harnessing Based on Game-Theoretic Symmetries”; “An Evaluation of E-Business with Fin”; and “Simulating Flip-Flop Gates Using Peer-to-Peer Methodologies.” The authors of those papers did not respond to requests for comment from FoxNews.com.

This is not the first time nonsense papers have been published.
In 1996, as a test, a physics professor submitted a fake paper to the philosophy journal Social Text. His paper argued that gravity is “postmodern” because it is “free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth.” Yet it was accepted and published.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I suspect these papers are getting thru because these journals have been saving money by
doing “peer review” by scanning them by a computer that analyses their content.


Follow the links. These articles were not published in reputable journals. They were accepted to conferences, and these conferences put out publications. Such publications have VERY little prestige in the academic world.

Many academic conferences accept most papers submitted to them. I don’t defend that practice, but it definitely doesn’t mean that the discipline of science has gone off the deep end.


I think part of the problem is that there has been more of a push for publishing in academia across all levels of colleges and universities and I am not convinced that is a good thing. Along with this has come a proliferation of journals and conferences which virtually ensures that a lot of low quality papers get published.


Yes, this is true. The FoxNews article does not say this but the Nature article they linked to does point this out. But the two examples of publishers they use are Springer and IEEE. I use Springer every once in a while to look up papers (although I actually read and take notes on them because I think it’s dishonest to cite things you haven’t read and/or understand). If I am not mistaken, IEEE is a very prominent computer science organization that sets all kinds of standardized programming conventions.

Normally the publisher sends a prospective article to reviewers who are supposed to either recommend it for publication, send back needed revisions, or recommend it for rejection. Either the publisher didn’t send them out for review, or the reviewers didn’t bother reading it.

Quite right, but unfortunately it seems like the amount of dishonesty in science, and society in general, is on the rise. There is a certain level of fraud present in certain published articles where people fudge or even completely fabricate data to get published because a lot of funding and prestige depends on publication records. I hope it’s not too common :frowning: but I think that too many people think that if they just make some small embellishments or withhold one small part of the truth then that’s okay, because it’s not a “big deal”. Even small lies completely erode the trust in an institution.


Yes, this is also true. A lot of it has to do with the fact that quantity of published articles seems to be more valued than quality of published articles, leading to junk journals that will publish anything for a price. Now that everything is electronic, it is even easier to publish things cheaply. There seems to be a push to change this view, which is good. Now you can see the “impact” of any particular journal which is basically correlated to the number of times it is cited in other articles. It’s better to judge based on things like that than the mere fact that it was published in a journal.


This is so funny.
Someone should put together a book of the oddest ones, a collection. I bet the computers come up with some really zany stuff.



This whole thing reminds me of monkeys, typewriters, and Shakespeare.


Try it yourself with this website:
The Virtual Academic: a random sentence generator
“The Virtual Academic generates random sentences from a list of phrases common in many academic fields.”

Here is an example I just generated:
Pootwattle, the Virtual Academic™, says:
[INDENT]The appropriation of desire can be subsumed under the representational validity of process.
Smedley, the Virtual Critic™, responds:
Pootwattle’s ambiguous reaffirmation of the relationship between the appropriation of desire and the representational validity of process is well known, but perhaps not well understood.[/INDENT]


I have one rule. Never trust anything scientific that’s written only in English.


Sounds exactly like Jacques Lacan… or pretty much any ‘scholar’ in the field of ‘critical theory.’


Well that is certainly interesting. It’s rather sad to you. You would think they would be actual science articles which are useful.


If I am not mistaken, IEEE is a very prominent computer science organization that sets all kinds of standardized programming conventions.

Programming standards are the tip of the iceberg; IEEE is probably the most important electrical engineering organization in the world. If they published this in one of their peer-reviewed journals, that’s seriously concerning.


They didn’t. It was accepted to a conference. That’s all.

No peer-reviewed journals were listed in the linked material.


From this article cited in the newsreport: natureworldnews.com/articles/6217/20140301/scholarly-journals-accepted-120-fake-research-papers-generated-by-computer-program.htm

The Nature News blog reported that most of the these gibberish papers were submitted to research conferences in China and that some of the authors listed on the papers did not appear to be aware their name was on the research.


closed #15

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.