https://theconversation.com/when-scientific-citations-go-rogue-uncovering-sneaked-references-233858A recent study has exposed a method of artificially inflating citation counts through "sneaked references," which are extra citations included in metadata but not in the actual text of articles. This manipulation, uncovered in journals by Technoscience Academy, distorts citation metrics that are critical for research funding and academic promotions. The Conversation reports:The investigation began when Guillaume Cabanac, a professor at the University of Toulouse, wrote a post on PubPeer, a website dedicated to post-publication peer review, in which scientists discuss and analyze publications. In the post, he detailed how he had noticed an inconsistency: a Hindawi journal article that he suspected was fraudulent because it contained awkward phrases had far more citations than downloads, which is very unusual. The post caught the attention of several sleuths who are now the authors of the JASIST article. We used a scientific search engine to look for articles citing the initial article. Google Scholar found none, but Crossref and Dimensions did find references. The difference? Google Scholar is likely to mostly rely on the article's main text to extract the references appearing in the bibliography section, whereas Crossref and Dimensions use metadata provided by publishers.
>>16276979We wanted our results to be externally validated, so we posted our study as a preprint, informed both Crossref and Dimensions of our findings and gave them a link to the preprinted investigation. Dimensions acknowledged the illegitimate citations and confirmed that their database reflects Crossref's data. Crossref also confirmed the extra references in Retraction Watch and highlighted that this was the first time that it had been notified of such a problem in its database. The publisher, based on Crossref's investigation, has taken action to fix the problem.To combat this practice of "sneaked references," the authors suggest several measures: rigorous verification of metadata by publishers and agencies like Crossref, independent audits to ensure data reliability, and increased transparency in managing references and citations.
>>16276979This is a really stupid idea because citations are numbered and a computer can easily run a find function. This sort of chinkcel invention isn't going to cut it for the long term fraud institutions require to stay afloat during the competency crisis.
if i reference a paper in a thread on 4chan does the author's impact score go up?
>>16279877it goes down
>>16279877Yes, but only until the thread 404s
>>16279877>>16281999Time to make a 4ch /sci/ RAG pipelineStart adding ethereum addresses in name field and ill drip imaginary internet good boi points into your wallets
>>16282088What type research would you like done sir? I will applied position. Best Regards.
>>16282285Up to you saar,If someone queries and your post is referenced you receive bonus good boy points
>>16282317Paid per you? ah benchod fuck your mother
>>16282588In current LLM world you can make your response extra spicy by adding context, like a filter or magnifying glass atop the AI. A way to make these filters is called RAG. By scraping 4ch /sci/ with chromadb, langchain and a locally deployed bigscience/bloom model from hugging face ill make a bunch of these filters. I will charge a small subscription fee to access these filters, but if you append an ethereum address to the name field, you will accumulate some good boi points if i scrape your comment. Additionally if a user uses this filters and it returns your comment as a source, you will earn extra good boi points.I meed to do this for work anyways
>>16282603Money from scientists using these RAGs will than support content generation here
how much does it cost to buy a "sneaked reference"?
