Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
149 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Can We Mathematically Spot Possible Manipulation of Results in Research Manuscripts Using Benford's Law? (2307.01742v1)

Published 4 Jul 2023 in cs.IR and cs.DL

Abstract: The reproducibility of academic research has long been a persistent issue, contradicting one of the fundamental principles of science. What is even more concerning is the increasing number of false claims found in academic manuscripts recently, casting doubt on the validity of reported results. In this paper, we utilize an adaptive version of Benford's law, a statistical phenomenon that describes the distribution of leading digits in naturally occurring datasets, to identify potential manipulation of results in research manuscripts, solely using the aggregated data presented in those manuscripts. Our methodology applies the principles of Benford's law to commonly employed analyses in academic manuscripts, thus, reducing the need for the raw data itself. To validate our approach, we employed 100 open-source datasets and successfully predicted 79% of them accurately using our rules. Additionally, we analyzed 100 manuscripts published in the last two years across ten prominent economic journals, with ten manuscripts randomly sampled from each journal. Our analysis predicted a 3% occurrence of result manipulation with a 96% confidence level. Our findings uncover disturbing inconsistencies in recent studies and offer a semi-automatic method for their detection.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (28)
  1. M. Franzen. Science Between Trust and Control: Non-Reproducibility in Scholarly Publishing, chapter 22, pages 467–485. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2016.
  2. D. Fanelli. Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? an empirical support from us states data. PLOS ONE, 5(4):1–7, 2010.
  3. Reproducible and replicable pain research: a critical review. PAIN, 159(9):1683–1689, 2018.
  4. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implementation Science, 10:155, 2015.
  5. P. Roberts and H. Priest. Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20(44), 2006.
  6. Keeping them honest: Fighting fraud in academic publishing. Molecular Therapy, 29(3):889–890, 2021.
  7. Do legitimate publishers benefit or profit from error, misconduct or fraud? Exchanges: The interdisciplinary Research Journal, 8(3), 2021.
  8. Ai-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns, 3(7):100511, 2022.
  9. Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? evidence on the reproducibility of study findings. Strategic Organization, 15(3):423–436, 2017.
  10. Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 126(9):1134–1140, 2019.
  11. J. Brainard and J. You. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’, 2018. Accessed on May 29th, 2023.
  12. D. P. Misra and V. Ravindran. Peer review in academic publishing: threats and challenges. J R Coll Physicians Edinb, 49:99–100, 2019.
  13. Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC, 25(3):227–243, 2013.
  14. S. F. Karabag and C. Berggren. Retraction, dishonesty and plagiarism: Analysis of a crucial issue for academic publishing, and the inadequate responses from leading journals in economics and management disciplines. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 2(3):172–183, 2012.
  15. W. E. Stehbens. Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review. Medical Hypotheses, 52(1):31–36, 1999.
  16. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO reports, 9(1), 2008.
  17. F. C. Fang and A. Casadevall. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity, 79(10):3855–3859, 2011.
  18. The effective use of benford’s law to assist in detecting fraud in accounting data. Journal of Forensic Accounting, pages 17–34, 2004.
  19. F. J. Massey. The kolmogorov-smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46(253):68–78, 1951.
  20. Estimating the mean and variance of the target probability distribution. In Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN’94), volume 1, pages 55–60, 1994.
  21. K. R. Srinath. Python – the fastest growing programming language. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(12), 2017.
  22. Benchmarking biologically-inspired automatic machine learning for economic tasks. Sustainability, 2023.
  23. Comparison of scimago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22(8):2623–2628, 2008.
  24. Visualization and analysis of scimago journal & country rank structure via journal clustering. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68(5):607–627, 2016.
  25. J. Manana-Rodríguez. A critical review of SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Research Evaluation, 24(4):343–354, 2014.
  26. Benford’s distribution in extrasolar world: Do the exoplanets follow benford’s distribution? Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38:7, 2017.
  27. Forum on benford’s law and statistical methods for the detection of frauds. Statistical Methods & Applications, 30:767–778, 2021.
  28. J. S. Granick. The Price of Restricting Vulnerability Publications. Intl. J. CommLaw & Pol’y, 9, 2005.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.