James then uses probably the biggest overinflator here: papermills. Papermills are like a bogeyman of #ScientificPublishing. Today, if you want to raise alarm about a paper (or besmirch someone you don't like, it really goes both ways), you can just claim the study comes from a papermill /22
Oct 5, 2024 at 3:05 PM
“Paging Dr. Fraud”: The Fake Publishers That Are Ruining Science
For years, spurious journals have proliferated online, promising academic credibility in exchange for cash.
Are Scientific Papers Bad?
The Bazaar of Scientific Knowledge | shishyko!
Is the current form of the scientific paper still optimal in 2025? How do we preserve, and efficiently leverage, the uncut gems of the scientific process?
These 183,000 Books Are Fueling the Biggest Fight in Publishing and Tech
Use our new search tool to see which authors have been used to train the machines.
Scientific production in the era of Large Language Models
Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly reshaping scientific research. We analyze these changes in multiple, large-scale datasets with 2.1M preprints, 28K peer review reports, and 246M online accesses to scientific documents. We find: 1) scientists adopting LLMs to draft manuscripts demonstrate a large increase in paper production, ranging from 23.7-89.3% depending on scientific field and author background, 2) LLM use has reversed the relationship between writing complexity and paper quality, leading to an influx of manuscripts that are linguistically complex but substantively underwhelming, and 3) LLM adopters access and cite more diverse prior work, including books and younger, less-cited documents. These findings highlight a stunning shift in scientific production that will likely require a change in how journals, funding agencies, and tenure committees evaluate scientific works.
Paperstars
A better way to evaluate scientific papers. Methodological soundness and transparency, not citation counts.
Is there a ‘Goldilocks zone’ for paper length?
A hefty paper published in Nature has raised the question of whether data-dense research tomes can still be digestible.
It’s time to get rid of the peer-reviewed paper
The peer-reviewed journal article, perhaps the single most important device behind the expansion of scientific knowledge in the last century, is an extraordinarily expensive way to share novelty: e…
The Bazaar of Scientific Knowledge | shishyko!
What if we didn't collapse all the knowledge from the scientific process into one paper?
Paper Skygest Team (@paper-feed.bsky.social)
Building personalized Bluesky feeds for academics! Pin Paper Skygest, which serves posts about papers from accounts you're following: https://bsky.app/profile/paper-feed.bsky.social/feed/preprintdigest. By @sjgreenwood.bsky.social and @nkgarg.bsky.social
Academic papers should become Bluesky accounts (yes, really)
Fake scientific papers made with AI used names of 3 Japan researchers
TOKYO -- A disreputable scientific journal used generative AI to create bogus papers, using the names of three Japanese researchers without permission
Dylan Wiliam on Twitter / X
The best journal article titles tell you what the study actually found, rather than being a teaser to make you read the paper. Here's a good example: "Spaced mathematics practice improves test scores and reduces overconfidence" https://t.co/iXxdkAgYPM ($)— Dylan Wiliam (@dylanwiliam) December 31, 2024
Do Science <i>Kardashians</i> Get Citation Premium? Self‐Fulfilling Effects of Social Media on Scientific Impact
ABSTRACT We analyze whether the visibility of scientists on social media affects the number of academic citations. We use the global COVID‐19 pandemic as a quasinatural experiment that exogenously increased public attention and the demand for expertise. Using publications on COVID‐related topics by social media stars and their coauthors prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, we find that social media stars' pre‐COVID‐era papers received about – more citations annually per paper after 2019. Quantitatively comparable results are obtained when we use scientists' Kardashian index (K‐index) as a benchmark for stardom, however we find no significant effects when using the intensive margin of scientists' K‐indexes. We provide a brief discussion of policy implications in light of these findings.
The new way we’ll do science
Papers should become human-readable views over a graph of data, tools, results, and certificates.
