Thread

1. fn-mote · 1789831955 · focus · HN ↗

   The Medium comments on this post are also on point. Running the same experiment with accepted papers is a good control. Running a similar experiment with reviewers would be interesting, but more obnoxious because they are not being paid.

   I would keep a private blacklist (shadow ban) the authors who wasted several hours of a reviewer's time to prove they were not legitimate. The existence of such a list would be problematic, though.

   Could the same system we use here be applied? Accepted authors could "vouch" for "dead" papers in case they were "auto-killed"?

   This system is broken and providing more evidence that it is broken isn't much of a step towards fixing it.

   1. doc_ick · 1789833142 · focus · HN ↗

      That would fail, humans and agents could create new “author” accounts by the swarm or have paid author accounts.

      1. wpietri · 1789914196 · focus · HN ↗

         What's the motivation to do that? Academic fraud is about building up a name.

         1. doc_ick · 1789934322 · focus · HN ↗

            Could you please expand? I don’t believe I understand the question.

            1. wpietri · 1789956806 · focus · HN ↗

               You said that people could do a thing. I'm asking why they would.

               Academic fraud is done to boost the reputation of the academic. There isn't a lot of point in academic fraud with one paper on each of 50 fake names.

               1. doc_ick · 1789957229 · focus · HN ↗

                  Ahhhh, that makes more sense. Academic fraud may not always be used to boost the reputation of an academic, it could boost the reputation of a science/technique/medicine. If you see 30 authors with 1,000s of citations saying x is superior and 3 authors saying y is superior, from a quick glance x seems a lot better.

                  Edit: see medical studies

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.