Duplicate and fake publications in the scientific literature: How many SCIgen papers in computer science?

Scientometrics

Volumn 94, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 379-396

  Labbé, Cyril ^a   Labbé, Dominique ^b  

^a UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

^b Laboratoire PACTE   (France)

Author keywords

Bibliographic tools; Fake publications; Google Scholar; Inter textual distance; Scientific conferences; Scopus; Text mining; WoK

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871923382     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0781-y     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ball, P. (2005). Computer conference welcomes gobbledegook paper. Nature, 434, 946.
2. Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2010). Academic search engine spam and google scholar's resilience against it. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 13(3). http://hdl. handle. net/2027/spo. 3336451. 0013. 305.
3. Benzecri J. P. (1980). L'analyse des données. Paris: Dunod.
4. Cover, T. M., & Hart, P. E. (1967). Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 13, 21-27.
5. Dalkilic, M. M., Clark, W. T., Costello, J. C., & Radivojac, P. (2006). Using compression to identify classes of inauthentic texts. In Proceedings of the 2006 SIAM Conference on Data Mining.
6. Elmacioglu, E., & Lee, D. (2009). Oracle, where shall i submit my papers?. Communications of the ACM (CACM), 52(2), 115-118.
7. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338-342.
8. Hockey, S., & Martin, J. (1988). OCP users' manual. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Service.
9. Jacso, P. (2008). Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster. Library Trends, 56(4).
10. Jacso, P.: The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 32(3), 437-452 (2008). doi: 10. 1108/14684520810889718.
11. Kato, J. (2005). Isi Web of Knowledge: proven track record of high quality and value. KnowledgeLink newsletter from Thomson Scientific.
12. Labbé, C. (2010). Ike antkare, one of the great stars in the scientific firmament. International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Newsletter, 6(2), 48-52.
13. Labbé, C., & Labbé, D. (2001). Inter-textual distance and authorship attribution corneille and moliere. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 8(3), 213-231.
14. Labbé, D. (2007). Experiments on authorship attribution by intertextual distance in english. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 14(1), 33-80.
15. Lavoie, A., Krishnamoorthy, M. (2010). Algorithmic detection of computer generated text. ArXiv e-prints.
16. Lee, L. (1999). Measures of distributional similarity. In 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 25-32.
17. Li, M., Chen, X., Li, X., Ma, B., & Vitanyi, P. (2004). The similarity metric. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 50(12), 3250-3264.
18. Meyer, D., Hornik, K., & Feinerer, I. (2008). Text mining infrastructure in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(5), 569-576.
19. Parnas, D. L. (2007). Stop the numbers game. Communications of ACM, 50(11), 19-21.
20. Roux, M. (1985). Algorithmes de classification. Paris: Masson.
21. Roux M. (1994) Classification des données d'enquête. Paris: Dunod.
22. Savoy, J. (2006). Les résultats de google sont-ils biaisés? Genève: Le Temps.
23. Sneath, P., & Sokal, R. (1973). Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman.
24. Xiong, J., & Huang, T. (2009). An effective method to identify machine automatically generated paper. In Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Software Engineering, 2009, KESE '09, pp. 101-102.
25. Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2006). Citation analysis: a comparison of google scholar, scopus, and web of science. American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1-15.