> STM hasn’t yet generated figures on accuracy or false-positive rates because the project is too new. But catching as many fakes as possible typically produces more false positives. Sabel’s tool correctly flagged nearly 90% of fraudulent or retracted papers in a test sample. However, it marked up to 44% of genuine papers as fake
> so results still need to be confirmed by skilled reviewers
So there is some human review involved. Which is presumably how they got to the headline figures of 34% of neuroscience papers and 24% of medicine papers are fake.
Still, flagging 44% of genuine papers as fake doesn't sound very useful. The process only about halves your workload compared to just checking all the papers. In any large-scale rollout they would have to set a way higher threshold, and hope they still catch a useful number of fraudulent papers when using a threshold that detects 10% or 1% of genuine papers as fake.
If they thing that people can do research in medicine without having legal access to the patients (AKA some kind of Hospital affiliation), they are clueless about medical research. They don't seem to understand how much hospitals, medical companies and academy are interwined now. Lots of relevant physicians are also teachers, direct a research team or are testers from new products.
They are also tagging all independent non affiliated researchers as fake. Do they know how many young people are doing science in the universities as temporary collabo-slaves without right to a nice personal mail?. Their detector would tag Einstein and Erdos as fake scientists by Pete's sake!. They just have a narrow vision tunnel about how the real research works
