Did you actually read all the works you cite in your high schooling and college paper ? If not , you ’re in all likelihood not the only one . Because a non - existent paper seems to have been cited over four hundred times by purportedly reputable research .
Leiden University professor Pieter Kroonenberg found the “ phantom reference ” in a nonexistent daybook while hunting for an clause on writing scientific clause , accordingto a poston the blog Retraction Watch . Middlesex University professor Anne - Wil Harzing dug into the effect and found that the clause was a made - up cite from the scientific discipline publisher Elsevier to show authors how to mention works . It ’s as if I pastedLorem ipsumtext into this clause instead of a quote . Here ’s the reference :
Van der Geer , J. , Hanraads , J.A.J. , Lupton , R.A. , 2010 . The artistic creation of writing a scientific clause . J Sci . Commun . 163 ( 2 ) 51 - 59 .
Image: Ryan F. Mandelbaum/Screenshot
Most of the papers that cited the phantom reference were “ middling low - character league papers , ” Harzing distinguish Retraction Watch . But still , the four hundred all appear on the reputable Web of Science that index scientific article . The reference pops up overseven hundred timeson a Google Scholar Search .
This believably is n’t a case of fraud . “ We found it screaming , ” Retraction Watch ’s cofounder , diarist , and past professor of mine Ivan Oransky told Gizmodo . The researchers secern Retraction Watch that the reference was a fault , “ [ but ] it makes us sit up , take poster , and wonder how it happens . I would assign indolence and failure of timber control . ”
Given the “ put out - or - perish ” attitude of skill , there ’s lots of places where low quality work slips through , as well as journalspreyingon scientist who ’ll give to publish or do n’t recognize any well . The mien of even more junk on the less - filtrate Google Scholar resultant role demonstrates that , well , there ’s a lot of shit out there .
But in this case , since no one is externally trust pretender , Oransky hopes that this silly narrative will assist continue the conversation about improving scientific publication .
“ If this is a story that makes it more comfortable for masses to try and tackle [ these issue ] as opposed to out and out fraud , then I ’m happy . ”
[ Retraction Watch ]
scientific discipline
Daily Newsletter
Get the best technical school , science , and culture intelligence in your inbox daily .
News from the future tense , delivered to your nowadays .
You May Also Like
