arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Leslie D. McIntosh

Publications and source records attributed to Leslie D. McIntosh.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

Tracing high-profile attention to questionable research as a case for funder due diligence

When questionable research has entered the scientific record, it stands the same chance as other literature of shaping national and international policy, clinical guidance, and research and development activities. This study uses a known authorship-for-sale network identified in August 2022 to examine whether questionable research influences policy, patents, and clinical guidelines, and whether its authors continue to secure funding and publish after exposure. Across nearly 2,000 publications in our dataset, 57 were cited in policy documents, 12 in clinical guidelines, and 480 in patents. Nearly a quarter of these publications are linked to one or more grants: funding that could otherwise have supported rigorous, ethical science. Among the 278 authors we traced, publishing and funding continued well after the PNN's public exposure in 2022: over 90% continued publishing, and 23% were linked to a grant. As our findings show, the participants of paper mills and authorship-for-sale networks can still inform policy and clinical practice and support their authors' career progression even after the questionable practices behind them are exposed. We present a case for funders to consider authorship and network structure as part of a holistic due diligence process, alongside metrics such as citation counts and attention data.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2024

Forensic Scientometrics -- An emerging discipline to protect the scholarly record

Forensic Scientometrics (FoSci) is emerging as a vital discipline at the intersection of scientific integrity and security. Scholarship and scholarly communication are critical for maintaining scientific integrity, influencing public trust in science, health, technology, policy, and law. Yet, these foundations are threatened by the misuse of scientific research for personal, commercial, ideological, and geopolitical gains, including questionable practices and misconduct. The rise of paper mills and predatory publishers, along with ideological and geopolitical motivations, undermines academic integrity. This field pioneers the integration of traditional scientometric methods with ethics to address pressing challenges in research integrity and security, crucial in an era of heightened scrutiny over science's reliability. FoSci's development signifies a collective commitment to maintaining scientific trust, marked by a call for official recognition and support from stakeholders across the scientific ecosystem.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2024

Identifying Fabricated Networks within Authorship-for-Sale Enterprises

Fabricated papers do not just need text, images, and data, they also require a fabricated or partially fabricated network of authors. Most `authors' on a fabricated paper have not been associated with the research, but rather are added through a transaction. This lack of deeper connection means that there is a low likelihood that co-authors on fabricated papers will ever appear together on the same paper more than once. This paper constructs a model that encodes some of the key characteristics of this activity in an `authorship-for-sale' network with the aim to create a robust method to detect this type of activity. A characteristic network fingerprint arises from this model that provides a robust statistical approach to the detection of paper-mill networks. The model suggested in this paper detects networks that have a statistically significant overlap with other approaches that principally rely on textual analysis for the detection of fraudulent papers. Researchers connected to networks identified using the methodology outlined in this paper are shown to be connected with 37% of papers identified through the tortured-phrase and clay-feet methods deployed in the Problematic Paper Screener website. Finally, methods to limit the expansion and propagation of these networks is discussed both in technological and social terms.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2023

Unveiling Deception: Establishing a Taxonomic Framework for Disinformation within Scientific Discourse

Disinformation spreads among the public and in scientific discourse through the actions of individuals, organizations, and governments that distort scholarly communications, media narratives, and institutional trust. This taxonomy introduces a structured framework and specialized set of definitions to elucidate the key participants, platforms, and strategies employed in the propagation of disinformation. Enhanced comprehension of the mechanisms and pathways of scientific disinformation equips journalists and policymakers with the tools necessary to more effectively recognize and address these issues. The authors developed this taxonomy of disinformation through a multi-faceted approach, encompassing a literature review, expert review, and case study analysis. The literature review revealed a scarcity of taxonomical models amidst prevalent algorithmic detection studies. Subsequently, an expert review process refined our taxonomy through collaborative analysis of twenty-two cases of identified disinformation, categorized by their methods, motives, and impacts. Finally, we validated and fine-tuned our taxonomy through detailed case studies of twelve diverse disinformation instances, assessing the taxonomy's effectiveness in capturing the essential characteristics of each case and making necessary adjustments to ensure its relevance and accuracy in real-world applications.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2023

Safeguarding Scientific Integrity: Examining Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review Process

This case study analyzes the expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and objectivity of editors, authors, and peer reviewers involved in a 2022 special journal issue on fertility, pregnancy, and mental health. Data were collected on qualifications, organizational affiliations, and relationships among six papers' authors, three guest editors, and twelve peer reviewers. Two articles were found to have undisclosed conflicts of interest between authors, an editor, and multiple peer reviewers affiliated with anti-abortion advocacy and lobbying groups, indicating compromised objectivity. This lack of transparency undermines the peer review process and enables biased research and disinformation proliferation. To increase integrity, we recommend multiple solutions: open peer review, expanded conflict of interest disclosure, increased stakeholder accountability, and retraction when ethical standards are violated. By illuminating noncompliance with ethical peer review guidelines, this study aims to raise awareness to help prevent the propagation of partisan science through respected scholarly channels.

cs.DL↗