4 ms·

> Sabel’s tool relies on just two indicators — authors who use private, noninstitutional email addresses, and [...] Uh huh. I didn't realize until today that

> Sabel’s tool relies on just two indicators — authors who use private, noninstitutional email addresses, and [...] Uh huh. I didn't realize until today that all my papers are fake because I give contact information that won't go stale in 3 years, instead of my work email.

FabHK 3y ago
That’s not what the paper says, I think (even though the badly written article can easily be understood that way).
- Strilanc 3y ago
  Reading the paper it seems like a pretty accurate description. The paper just calls it a "private email" instead of a "non-institutional email". For example (@@@ emphasis is mine): > To identify indicators able to red-flagged fake publications (RFPs), we sent questionnaires to authors. Based on author responses, three indicators were identified: @@@“author's private email”@@@, “international co-author” and “hospital affiliation”. > For Studies 1 to 6 we identified two easy-to-detect indicators, where a publication was labelled as RFP: @@@if an author used a private email@@@ and had no international partner. > Then we combined the two best indicators (@@@“author's private email”@@@ and “hospital affiliation”) to form a classification (tallying) rule: “If both indicators are present, classify as a potential fake, otherwise not” (the “AND” rule) (Katsikopoulos et al., 2020). Fun bonus there with the 2020 book citation for the concept of an AND gate in a classifier.
juujian 3y ago
Love that! I never understood why so many of us would use their affiliation's email address in print if they know that they would only be there for another 2--3 years.
olddustytrail 3y ago
I suspect all your papers are fake, simply because you don't understand the number "two". I would allow just one valid paper with that inability.
- Strilanc 3y ago
  The rule I omitted from the quote was "hospital affiliation". In the paper, they try a variety of combinations of rules, including some where failing any one rule classifies the paper as fake. The meat of my complaint remains even when they're intersecting with other rules. We should not be incentivizing people to use emails that predictably go dead in O(years). It is quite a common annoyance to read a paper, want to contact the author, and not be able to because the email they listed is dead, requiring searching for where they currently work and trying to find their email at that new place, with mixed results. Yes, a private email is predictive of a paper being fake, in the literal sense that P(fake|privateemail) > P(fake|institutionemail). I get weird looks at work for using my permanent email address because of it. And probably if we select on that as a way to discard papers, it will initially appear to work and then start to look like it's working even better because anyone trying to give permanent contact info will be forced to switch to be published/cited/taken-seriously. But that's a bad outcome. Also, if you systematize this rule, paper mills will just start using emails that appear institutional, because this is a simple rule to defeat.

FabHK 3y ago

That’s not what the paper says, I think (even though the badly written article can easily be understood that way).

Strilanc 3y ago
Reading the paper it seems like a pretty accurate description. The paper just calls it a "private email" instead of a "non-institutional email". For example (@@@ emphasis is mine): > To identify indicators able to red-flagged fake publications (RFPs), we sent questionnaires to authors. Based on author responses, three indicators were identified: @@@“author's private email”@@@, “international co-author” and “hospital affiliation”. > For Studies 1 to 6 we identified two easy-to-detect indicators, where a publication was labelled as RFP: @@@if an author used a private email@@@ and had no international partner. > Then we combined the two best indicators (@@@“author's private email”@@@ and “hospital affiliation”) to form a classification (tallying) rule: “If both indicators are present, classify as a potential fake, otherwise not” (the “AND” rule) (Katsikopoulos et al., 2020). Fun bonus there with the 2020 book citation for the concept of an AND gate in a classifier.

juujian 3y ago

Love that! I never understood why so many of us would use their affiliation's email address in print if they know that they would only be there for another 2--3 years.

olddustytrail 3y ago

I suspect all your papers are fake, simply because you don't understand the number "two". I would allow just one valid paper with that inability.

Strilanc 3y ago
The rule I omitted from the quote was "hospital affiliation". In the paper, they try a variety of combinations of rules, including some where failing any one rule classifies the paper as fake. The meat of my complaint remains even when they're intersecting with other rules. We should not be incentivizing people to use emails that predictably go dead in O(years). It is quite a common annoyance to read a paper, want to contact the author, and not be able to because the email they listed is dead, requiring searching for where they currently work and trying to find their email at that new place, with mixed results. Yes, a private email is predictive of a paper being fake, in the literal sense that P(fake|privateemail) > P(fake|institutionemail). I get weird looks at work for using my permanent email address because of it. And probably if we select on that as a way to discard papers, it will initially appear to work and then start to look like it's working even better because anyone trying to give permanent contact info will be forced to switch to be published/cited/taken-seriously. But that's a bad outcome. Also, if you systematize this rule, paper mills will just start using emails that appear institutional, because this is a simple rule to defeat.