Jennifer Byrne

@jabyrnesci.bsky.social

Prof cancer research
Infrastructure, research integrity, errors, paper mills
Views my own
PRIMeR group: https://www.sydney.edu.au/medicine-health/our-research/research-centres/publication-and-research-integrity-in-medical-research-primer.html

@hansonmark.bsky.socialReposted by @jabyrnesci.bsky.social

Ex. cite distortions (Scancar et al.) + IF & Imp.Inf (2021): Can Lett (9.8, 4.7)‼️ J Exp Clin Can Res (12.7, 4.9)‼️ Mol Can (41.4, 4.7)‼️ Neoplasia (6.2, 4.3)‼️ Oncogene (8.8, 3.8)❗ Can Res (13.3, 3.2) Non-profits ex: DMM (5.7, 2.8) Science (63.7, 1.0)⭐ ‼️ = high cites distortion, high Imp.Inf 2/3

Charts made with https://pagoba.shinyapps.io/strain_explorer/Charts made with https://pagoba.shinyapps.io/strain_explorer/Papers flagged for citation manipulation contributed up to 20% to a journal's Impact Factor (2-year citation rate) between 2014-2023, indicating these journals rose to prominence in no small part through hosting articles that likely manipulated citation behaviours.
@hansonmark.bsky.socialReposted by @jabyrnesci.bsky.social

Citation distortions (Scancar et al.) + IF & Imp.Inf (2025): Can Lett (11.8, 3.7)❗ J Exp Clin Can Res (14.3, 3.5)❗ Mol Can (42.2, 3.3) Oncogene (9.1, 3.2) Can Res (22.6, 2.6) Neoplasia (4.8, 2.3)⭐ Non-profits ex: DMM (3.6, 2.0)⭐ Science (47.3, 1.5)⭐ ⭐ = low cites distortion, low Imp.Inf 3/3

Charts made with https://pagoba.shinyapps.io/strain_explorer/Charts made with https://pagoba.shinyapps.io/strain_explorer/Papers flagged for citation manipulation contributed up to 20% to a journal's Impact Factor (2-year citation rate) between 2014-2023, indicating these journals rose to prominence in no small part through hosting articles that likely manipulated citation behaviours.
@hansonmark.bsky.socialReposted by @jabyrnesci.bsky.social

Striking citation manipulation in major cancer journals by @baptscc.bsky.social @jabyrnesci.bsky.social David Causeur and @aidybarnett.bsky.social; some with IF over 40.
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Plots from Scancar et al.

Can also see this in Impact Inflation (bit.ly/StrainQSS, next posts).

1/4

Papers flagged for citation manipulation contributed up to 20% to a journal's Impact Factor (2-year citation rate) between 2014-2023, indicating these journals rose to prominence in no small part through hosting articles that likely manipulated citation behaviours.Heatmap showing yearly percentages of flagged papers across leading molecular cancer research journals (0.6 paper mill probability threshold). Journals are ordered according to their overall mean percentage of flagged papers during the study period.Adjusted rate ratios (RR) for citation and attention outcomes associated with flagged index papers. Attention outcomes (Mendeley readers and online accesses) reflect total cumulative attention since publication. Points represent RRs estimated from negative binomial regression models, comparing flagged and nonflagged index papers based on the paper mill probability threshold (0.6 and 0.9).
Jennifer Byrne@jabyrnesci.bsky.social

Online by @baptscc.bsky.social @aidybarnett.bsky.social and David Causeur Suspected distortion of citations in high-impact cancer journals 🧪 #PaperMills that produce & sell manuscripts may be manipulating citations, but the extent of any manipulation is unknown. 1/5 www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10....

pnas.orgPNASProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans...
@jabyrnesci.bsky.social

We found that citations from suspected paper mill articles measurably inflated journal citation metrics. These findings suggest that paper mills inflate the citation metrics of supported publications and affected journals at scale. 🙏 to @nhmrc.bsky.social for funding support 5/5

@jabyrnesci.bsky.social

Suspected paper mill articles also cited—and were cited by—other suspected paper mill articles, which frequently appeared in journals previously reported as paper mill targets. 4/5

@jabyrnesci.bsky.social

Suspected paper mill articles received 50 to 100% more citations than other papers 1 to 3 y after publication, while paradoxically attracting fewer readers and online accesses. 3/5

@jabyrnesci.bsky.social

... We show that molecular cancer articles sharing features with retracted papers from paper mills display citation patterns that suggest systematic inflation. These articles were published in journals in the top decile of journal rankings. 2/5

@drjbeaudry.bsky.socialReposted by @jabyrnesci.bsky.social

Join us for our annual open science speaker series at Flinders University. James Heathers will be talking about his new work conducting forensic metascience at a massive scale, taking observations about data accuracy and applying them across the entire body of published human science.

Picture of James Heathers. Title of talk: Make the computer even scarier: Automated, closed-form forensics at literature scale. Details: Thursday 5 November 10-11am AEDT Online via Microsoft Teams Register here: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/making-the-computer-even-scarier-tickets-2000094021058
@laurahelmuth.bsky.socialReposted by @jabyrnesci.bsky.social

"Given the enormous time spent in workplace meetings, do we know what they accomplish or how to make them as worthwhile as possible? For decades, the answer was: not really... Once a tiny niche area, 'meeting science' is a growing specialization." On @knowablemag.bsky.social

@crs-uzh.bsky.socialReposted by @jabyrnesci.bsky.social

Could paying more attention to negligence, sloppiness and overconfidence help strengthen research integrity? Join us today for the 3rd CRS lecture series event: “Fake Science -Isolated Cases or a Systemic Problem?”
📍UZH Main Building, Room KOL-F-118 |🕕 18:15–20:00
🔗 crsuzh.pages.uzh.ch/fake-science/

Photo, no description
@jabyrnesci.bsky.social

I just learned about the fake book club scams the other day... many scientists don't write books, so maybe the spammers aren't wasting their time with us. Maybe we'll instead see fake journal clubs, asking authors to pay for a group of "people" to discuss our article(s)???

@historywill.bsky.socialReposted by @jabyrnesci.bsky.social

Genuinely fascinated by these AI slop book club/podcast/Meetup Community spam-scam emails. I'm getting one every other day now. Why are they doing this? Do they actually trick anyone? What was it like in the beautiful pre-genAI days? Did people receive similar email attempts in the same volume?

An email Hi Will, The title Inspecting the Home caught my attention because it immediately suggests looking at something we normally think of as private and familiar through a much more questioning lens. The idea of “inspecting” the home made me wonder what becomes visible when we stop treating the home as simply a place where people live and instead begin examining what it tells us about the people, structures, and experiences connected to it. That is the kind of starting point I think can lead to a particularly interesting conversation among readers. I’m Scott Jenkins, founder of Drunken Philosophy, a Meetup community built around thoughtful conversations, new perspectives, and bringing curious people together around ideas worth exploring. One thing I’ve noticed is that books with something substantial to say can sometimes struggle to find the readers who would genuinely appreciate them. The book may be there, but the conversation around it has not always found its audience.
Older posts