this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
324 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59689 readers
3370 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A biologist was shocked to find his name was mentioned several times in a scientific paper, which references papers that simply don't exist.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course they do. How do you think fake references were included if references were not needed?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Citing sources by name rather than providing full links/ISBN's/etc?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ah! "Bibliography" is an ambiguous term.

As the linked article says, one measure that journals are starting to adopt is requiring DOI or PMID links for each reference. It ought to be standard anyway, it's much less work for reviewers to check the references if they're easy to find. Even if they exist, they often don't say what the authors cite them as saying. But journals don't pay anyone for checking these things so it often doesn't get done. Peer review needs to be paid for. For-profit journals need to die.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah that's fair. Since Covid I've noticed that a bunch of the more vocal opponents online liked to pick actual scientific articles and quote small sections way out of context in order to support their "view". It's like using scientific articles for anti-science. That pull that shit repeatedly and piss people off, then report anyone who gets a bit to loud in their response. Seems a whole playbook these days