Publisher of science journals Springer said Thursday it would scrap 16 papers from its archives after they were revealed to be computer-generated gibberish.
The fake papers had been submitted to conferences on computer science and engineering whose proceedings were published in specialised, subscription-only publications, Springer said.
"We are in the process of taking down the papers as quickly as possible," the German-based publisher said in a statement.
"This means that they will be removed, not retracted, since they are all nonsense."
Springer added: "We are looking into our procedures to find the weakness that could allow something like this to happen, and we will adapt our processes to ensure that it does not happen again."
The embarrassing lapse was exposed by French computer scientist Cyril Labbe of the Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble.
He also spotted more than 100 other "nonsense" papers unwittingly published by the New York-based Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the journal Nature reported.
In a statement to AFP, the institute said it had been advised "there might have been some conference papers published in our IEEE Xplore digital library that did not meet our quality standards."
"We took immediate action to remove those papers, and also refined our processes to prevent papers not meeting our standards from being published in the future," it said. The statement gave no further details.
Labbe, 41, has been exploring how to detect fake papers written with a programme called SCIgen.
At the press of a button, the programme cranks out impressive-looking "studies" stuffed with randomly-selected computer and engineering terms.
Instant goobledook
Here is an example: "Constant-time technology and access points have garnered great interest from both futurists and physicists in the last several years. After years of extensive research into superpages, we confirm the appropriate unification of 128-bit architectures and checksums."
This "paper" comes complete with fake graphs and citations—essential features in scientific publishing—that in SCIgen's case includes recent references to famous scientists who died decades or centuries ago.
The programme was devised in 2005 by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
They used it to concoct meaningless papers that were accepted by conferences. The researchers later revealed the hoax to expose flaws in safeguards.
SCIgen is freely available online, at pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
Labbe told AFP he spotted the frauds by searching for telltale SCIgen vocabulary.
In 2010, he used SCIgen to create 102 bogus papers by a fictitious scientist and added these to the Google Scholar database, an index of science prestige.
For a time, "Ike Antkare" ranked 21st on the database's list of most-cited scientists in the world—higher than Einstein, who ranked a lowly 36th.
The fake papers detected by Labbe were submitted to conferences between 2008 and 2013. They were uncovered through research he published in 2012 in Scientometrics—by coincidence, also a Springer journal.
In some cases, he said, a paper's introduction or conclusion were rewritten by a human to appear more authentic at first glance—a veneer presumably aimed at fooling superficial scrutiny.
'Peer review' under pressure
Labbe said the fraud struck at the credibility of peer-reviewed systems in which scientific claims are meant to be assessed by independent experts for soundness.
"There are several possible explanations" for the fakes, he said.
"One is that people are just testing the system, but if that's the case, they should reveal who they are and they haven't done so," said Labbe. "Another is that the papers are a deliberate fraud to make money."
Springer said scientific publishing, like other fields, "is not immune to fraud and mistakes".
"The peer-review system is the best system we have so far and this incident will lead to additional measures on the part of Springer to strengthen it."
Also on Thursday, South Korea's Supreme Court upheld an 18-month suspended jail term against Hwang Woo-Suk, accused of embezzlement and abuse of ethics in one of the most notorious frauds in science publishing.
Hwang shot to fame in 2004 when he published papers in the prestigious US journal Science claiming to have created the first stem-cell lines from a cloned human embryo.
The claims raised hopes of new treatments for diseases like cancer, diabetes and Parkinson's, and Hwang and his team were showered with money and national honours.
His findings were later found to have been faked. No stem cells had been produced.
Explore further:
How the 'Matthew Effect' helps some scientific papers gain popularity
julianpenrod
Q-Star
Mimath224
dedereu
Nearly no referee is working sufficiently, so that papers with no disturbing results are accepted, even fraud or plagiary.
But many real disturbing discoveries have been refused, even for future Nobel Prizes.
In conferences, often, papers are less refereed, so that crazy non sense papers can be accepted !!
antialias_physorg
Peer review is certainly not infallible. But I have to - grudgingly - agree with the Springer official: it's the best system we currently have.
You always have to remember that a research paper is something no one else has done before. So the only person who really has an in-depth understanding at that point is the author (and maybe not even him/her if the paper is faulty).
Peer reviewers come from the same field, but not from the same specialty. They should generally be able to see whether a paper makes sense or not - but the specifics...?
It might be helpful if reviewers could have (moderated/anonymized) conversations about the content of the paper to make sure they understand it.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014Rimino
Feb 28, 2014Captain Stumpy
@zeph
not so sure about this...
the 100+ papers pulled were from IEEE, which is where Electric Universe publishes its pseudoscience crap
probably why so many were pulled from their site
your stilted syntax also helps with recognition
TheGhostofOtto1923
And they will begin the task of sifting through our vast accumulation of knowledge and weeding out ALL gibberish.
antialias_physorg
I wouldn't use the word 'unique'. I'd use the word 'special' (as in 'short bus special'). That kind of uniqueness is pretty easy to spot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
Soon enough computers will note crassness such as this and your bank account will be automatically debited and your credit report adjusted accordingly. And your post will be gang-rated appropriately.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014Whydening Gyre
until we become one with them...:-)
Mimath224
I realise that computers will become more sophisticated but wouldn't it have to be some kind of 'biocomp' that would think for itself? If a comp is mechanical what type of limit must be reached so G in G out is no longer applicable?
Whydening Gyre
If it is possible, it is probable...
adam_russell_9615
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014Whydening Gyre
Mimath. Not at all. given the correct algorithmic function, they can think and act as biological entity, even if not biologically constructed..\ That said, I believe we are using the wrong number base to correctly instigate this algorithmic function.
Mimath224
Whydening Gyre
6. So that thirds are possible. Either that or 60... Or even maybe 9.
cantdrive85
Still lying?
Being that they pulled the unacceptable papers immediately and that Thornhill's, Scott's, et al are still there...
http://ieeexplore...rch=true
http://ieeexplore...rch=true
http://ieeexplore...rch=true
...would only indicate you're lying again.
Captain Stumpy
@cant see/think
not lying, see: http://www.nature...-1.14763
I will quote (since you are too stupid to follow the link and read for yourself):
[sic]
means that IEEE had hundreds pulled, like I said
my statement stand as perfectly factual
IEEE is where EU publishes because no reputable astrophysical journal will touch PSEUDOSCIENCE
and I guessed that was why so many were pulled from their site
given that we cannot READ the pulled papers, I would still say the same thing
any site willing to publish EU rubbish is not a reputable site
and NO I will not look at your links... I DO NOT READ garbage from sites that are not reputable
linking them only proves PSEUDOSCIENCE
not REAL SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
@cd
also, given that I gave a personal conjecture about thinking that the papers pulled were EU, I will state that it is based upon the following logic:
1- EU is a PSEUDOSCIENCE
2- EU supports the physically impossible and claims it as gospel for their astrophysical model
3- EU published papers on plasma physics and cosmology DO NOT CONTAIN ASTROPHYSICS and are related only by conjecture, or supposition due to faulty assessment of visible similarities and illogical extrapolation (see Moon craters/Saturn/Grand Canyon
4- ANY JOURNAL that would publish astrophysics papers without astrophysicists involved in it, or without an astrophysicist to proof it and assess its credibility, is not reputable
5- ANY JOURNAL that publishes KNOWN FALLACIES(that can be researched in a 2 minute internet search and using only reputable sites for resources) IS NOT A REPUTABLE JOURNAL
eag97a
cantdrive85
I choose ignorance! CS
Captain Stumpy
@cant think
I make this special exception just for you and EU acolytes
and there is good reason
when I actually went to those links and tried to read those studies, I kept getting the same results... that you were pushing known pseudoscience
therefore, yes
I CHOOSE TO IGNORE THEM
and I choose to ignore them because it is simple...
IF THERE IS REPUTABLE SCIENCE, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND A REPUTABLE SOURCE TO SUPPORT IT, NOT SOME ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL THAT HAS NO RELATION OR IMPACT ON ASTROPHYSICS
simple, really
GIVEN that you HAVE YET to be able to do this
I can also then conclude
YOU ARE A PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL
PERIOD
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014Bonia
Mar 02, 2014Captain Stumpy
@Zeph
you have a point about that
I just didnt like wasting time/resources/etc on something I knew was going to be a dud
I will concede that it is ignorant of me to ignore them without giving them the benefit of at least a cursory investigation/research
I will still argue:
using a site that is known for pushing/publishing pseudoscience is the same as linking to pictures of fairies climbing up the nose of a unicorn
IOW – irrelevant and without merit
IF there is real science AND
IF there is a legitimate point to be made
THEN
there WILL be studies from reputable journals that can support the statements
THEREFORE
I will still require proof to be from LEGITIMATE reputable sites
Captain Stumpy
@Zeph
this really depends upon the circumstances IMHO
being INTERESTED is DIFFERENT than PROVING A POINT
IF we allow ANY source to be legitimate to PROVE a point, then we invite irrelevance into the argument, and we are no better than pseudoscientists
THEREFORE, like I said above, it is IMPERATIVE that the source of PROOF (empirical data) be a reputable source that is known for publications that are RELEVANT, LEGITIMATE and PEER REVIEWED...
but as far as INTEREST goes, I agree with you. There should be NO constraints/limitations and in this I usually have none
Maggnus
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014Mimath224
Captain Stumpy
@Mimath224
are you referring to the Science Mag article from january in the links below?
https://www.scien....summary
https://www.scien...229.full
if not... can you send me some links? I would like to read what your are talking about
sounds VERY INTERESTING
THANKS
Mimath224
Duke University. "To teach scientific reproducibility, start young." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 28 February 2014.
http://www.scienc...0138.htm
Captain Stumpy
GREAT article, and interesting how it applies here too
Yep...seems like that to me too...
cant learn/reproduce due to the disconnect between the reporting and the data analysis, which are separate formats
I am with you... may not be THE answer, but it WILL help... and CANT hurt...
just sped thru the article... going back over it later!
(reading Clegg right now)
THANKS for the link! really interesting article!