Emerging plagiarism in peer-review evaluation reports: a tip of the iceberg?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Plagiarized and fake reviews are also an issue that NLP tools can help detect and prevent.
“Finally, as with manuscripts, plagiarized and fake reviews are also an issue (Piniewski et al., 2024) that NLP tools can help detect and prevent.”
From What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? (2024) · cites this paper as Piniewski et al., 2024
Cites
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
What is open peer review? A systematic review
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.1 · Cited by 232 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It is important to note that the adoption of the practice of publishing the peer-review reports is a positive development (Ross-Hellauer, 2017), leading to more openness and transparency, without which the detection of peer-review plagiarism reported here would not be possible.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?
Kuznetsov, I., Afzal, O. M., Dercksen, K., Dycke, N., Goldberg, A., Hope, T., Hovy, D., Kummerfeld, J. K., Lauscher, A., Leyton-Brown, K., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.06563 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Piniewski, M., Jarić, I., Koutsoyiannis, D., & Kundzewicz, Z. W.
- ORCID
- Piniewski, Mikołaj
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2024-02-29
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2489-2498
- ISSN
- 0138-9130
- 1588-2861
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
