论文标题
同行评审中文本重复的探索性分析揭示了同行评审欺诈和造纸厂
Exploratory analysis of text duplication in peer-review reveals peer-review fraud and paper mills
论文作者
论文摘要
分析了同行评审期间从裁判中收到的评论，以确定重复和部分重复的比率。 2个不同的裁判员提交相同的评论是非常不寻常的，因此，这种情况的罕见情况令人感兴趣。在某些情况下，看来纸磨房创建了假裁判帐户，并使用它们提交伪造的同行评审报告。这些包括在多个评论中复制和粘贴的评论。因此，在裁判评论中搜索重复是一种通常搜索不当行为的有效方法，因为纸磨房所犯下的不当行为的形式超出了同行评审欺诈。这些搜索方法允许自动检测不当行为候选者，然后可以仔细研究，以确认是否确实发生了不当行为。裁判可能会共享模板报告的无辜原因，因此这些方法无意自动诊断不当行为。
Comments received from referees during peer-review were analysed to determine the rates of duplication and partial duplication. It is very unusual for 2 different referees to submit identical comments, so the rare cases where this happens are of interest. In some cases, it appears that paper-mills create fake referee accounts and use them to submit fake peer-review reports. These include comments that are copied and pasted across multiple reviews. Searching for duplication in referee comments is therefore an effective method to search for misconduct generally, since the forms of misconduct committed by paper-mills go beyond peer-review fraud. These search methods allow the automatic detection of misconduct candidates which may then be investigated carefully to confirm if misconduct has indeed taken place. There are innocent reasons why referees might share template reports, so these methods are not intended to automatically diagnose misconduct.
