Paper detail

Comparing the writing style of real and artificial papers

Recent years have witnessed the increase of competition in science. While promoting the quality of research in many cases, an intense competition among scientists can also trigger unethical scientific behaviors. To increase the total number of published papers, some authors even resort to software tools that are able to produce grammatical, but meaningless scientific manuscripts. Because automatically generated papers can be misunderstood as real papers, it becomes of paramount importance to develop means to identify these scientific frauds. In this paper, I devise a methodology to distinguish real manuscripts from those generated with SCIGen, an automatic paper generator. Upon modeling texts as complex networks (CN), it was possible to discriminate real from fake papers with at least 89\% of accuracy. A systematic analysis of features relevance revealed that the accessibility and betweenness were useful in particular cases, even though the relevance depended upon the dataset. The successful application of the methods described here show, as a proof of principle, that network features can be used to identify scientific gibberish papers. In addition, the CN-based approach can be combined in a straightforward fashion with traditional statistical language processing methods to improve the performance in identifying artificially generated papers.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.