Gimme the papers, the papers

[Pyrrho]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02895-8

In a project that could unlock the world’s research papers for easier computerized analysis, an American technologist has released online a gigantic index of the words and short phrases contained in more than 100 million journal articles — including many paywalled papers.

[Hotarubi]

Can you find me that article about the torturing of Tunisian puppies paid for by Trump?

Thanks.

[Pyrrho]

Might be relevant...

Link: https://twitter.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/1478620701284204547?t=wSduBcM0P0nxXaMBx4FeHg&s=19

[Pyrrho]

https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/bosom-p ... ing-fraud/

...in a new twist to the age-old problem of academic fraud, modern plagiarists are making use of software and perhaps even emerging AI technologies to draft articles—and they’re getting away with it.

[The Atheist]

Great thread title! One of my favourite characters. Jimmy Two Times.

[Doctor X]

Got banned again.

– J.D.

[The Atheist]

Got banned again.

You pathetic short-man tubby gutless piece of puke. I haven't been banned from anywhere, I come and go as I please.

You're the worst kind of fuckwit, sucking up to far-right morons and conspiracist wankers while trying to project an image of intellect.

I wipe stuff of my shoes that have more character, balls and brains than you.

[robinson]

I just removed the Atheist from my ignore list!

[Pyrrho]

https://people.f4.htw-berlin.de/~weberw ... r/app.html

similarity texter is a web application that measures, and reports lexical similarities, which are unique (no duplicates), between two input files or texts. Its implementation is based on the sim_text algorithm, developed by Dick Grune.

[Pyrrho]

https://twitter.com/DGlaucomflecken/sta ... 9829209090

[Doctor X]

"Kaylee?"

– J.D.

[Pyrrho]

One of the reasons for high publication fees is that the journals know that pharma companies are often involved, so it basically comes down to "Oh, want an Open Access paper in our prestigious journal to make yourself look good? Fuck you, pay us!" Which results in a market that is much harder for scientists not supported by pharma companies.

[Doctor X]

Yup. There is also the, "you want to get out of post-docs and be considered for a tenure track?"

"Fuck you, pay me!"

– J.D.

[Pyrrho]

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/a ... io.3001562

Analysis of 567,758 randomized controlled trials published over 30 years reveals trends in phrases used to discuss results that do not reach statistical significance

[Anaxagoras]

But was it a significant trend?

[Ben Trovado]

But was it a significant trend?

If, by "significant," you mean "it got me my summer home," then yes.

[Pyrrho]

https://lens.monash.edu/@medicine-healt ... publishing

Relatively early in the COVID-19 pandemic, three scientific papers were published about the new, highly-contagious virus that have since become notorious. All used fake or suspect patient data, and were either retracted by the prominent medical journals that published them or removed altogether.

Unfortunately, the damage was already done, despite the retractions, because the papers had already been cited by other researchers in the field, and reported on in mass media.

Even worse, the papers continued to be cited even after being retracted by the journals in question. Retraction is supposed to safeguard against error and misconduct, and should stop bogus or incorrect research from impacting scientific ideas and clinical practice, but that’s not how it played out in these high-profile cases, during a global pandemic.

A new investigation involving Monash University’s health evidence unit, Cochrane Australia – in the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine – looked at retractions among the more than 270,000 COVID-19 papers that have been lodged online since the start of the pandemic. The 212 retracted papers investigated were cited 2697 times, a median of seven times per paper.

A quarter of these retracted papers reported clinical findings relevant to patient care – almost 90% of citations of these papers referenced the retracted paper without mentioning it had been retracted, and 80% were published after the retraction.