Teaching chatbots to say “I don’t know” could curb hallucinations. It could also break AI’s business model

Wie KI-Tools wie ChatGPT oder Mistral das wissenschaftliche Arbeiten verändern – zwischen Effizienzgewinn, Publikationsbetrug und ethischen Grenzen.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans...

My Norxin sting operation Guest post by Csaba Szabo Chair of Pharmacology, University of Fribourg, Switzerland   After the limited success ...

Science relies on integrity and trustworthiness. But scientists under career pressure are lured to purchase fake publications from ‘paper mills’ that use AI-generated data, text and image fabrication. The number of low-quality or fraudulent publications ...

Study says small editor group handled many problematic manuscripts — and a Nature investigation finds out who they are.

Can you universities overcome the mismatch between current teaching and learning practices, their evaluation and the ubiquitous use of AI?

We discuss newly uncovered cases of identity theft in the scientific peer-review process within artificial intelligence (AI) research, with broader implications for other academic procedures. We detai...

Objectives To characterize journals that published and retracted articles retracted for having originated from paper mills and examine associations between paper mill retraction frequency and journal characteristics. Methods Retraction Watch database was used to identify papers retracted due to originating from paper mills and journals, between January 2020 and December 2022. Data on the total number of articles and journal characteristics were obtained from Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports. Journals were classified based on the frequency of retracted paper mill papers (1, 2–9, ≥ 10 retractions). Logistic regressions were conducted to explore associations between retraction frequency and journal characteristics. Results One hundred forty-two journals were identified that retracted 2,051 articles from paper mills. Among these, 71 (50%) journals had 1 retraction, 36 (25.4%) had 2–9 retractions, and 35 (24.6%) had ≥ 10 retractions; 4 (2.8%) journals had > 100 retractions. These journals, regardless of paper mill retraction number, were mainly in the second (35.2%) and third (29.6%) quartiles by impact factor. Medicine and health emerged as the predominant subject area, comprising 61.2% of all indexed journal categories. Comparing journals with one retraction to those with ten or more, the proportion of open access articles (72.6% vs. 19.2%) and median editorial times (86 vs. 116 days) differed across groups, although these differences were not statistically significant. An inverse correlation was observed between the proportion of paper mill papers and original articles (Spearman’s Rho = –0.1891, 95%CI -0.370 to -0.008). Logistic regressions found no significant association between paper mill retraction number and other variables. Conclusion This study suggests that paper mill retractions are concentrated in a small number of journals with common characteristics: high open access rates, intermediate impact factor quartiles, a high volume of citable items, and classification in medicine and health categories. Short editorial times may indicate a higher presence of paper mill publications, but more research is needed to examine this factor in depth, as well as the possible influence of acceptance rates.

You may have spotted us at different conferences and wondered what we’re doing amid active researchers. Here, we demystify the editorial aims of conference attendance.

A new study finds ChatGPT fails to take into account retraction notices across a wide range of research.

Paper Mills und Fake Journals: Die Zahl gefälschter Forschungsarbeiten wächst deutlich schneller als die legitimer Wissenschaft.

Berichte über zurückgezogene Publikationen, bei denen das Peer-Review-Verfahren systematisch unterwandert oder manipuliert wurde, häufen sich. Was steckt dahinter?

Der oa.helpdesk wird im Rahmen des BMFTR-geförderten Projekts open-access.network betrieben und berät Wissenschaftler*innen bei Fragen zu Open Access. Für die E-Mail-Beratung sind auch externe Expert*...

Beratungsangebote zum wissenschaftlichen Publizieren sind eine logische Weiterentwicklung von Open-Access-Angeboten und haben sich mittlerweile an zahlreichen Bibliotheken etabliert. Die Fokusgruppe P...

Warum ist Peer View im Open Access notwendig und wichtig? PUBLISSO hat alle Punkte zusammengefasst und zeigt, wie Sie sich damit auch vor Predatory Publishern schützen können.