Median Watch

Eyes on statistics

Research integrity is locked into an arms race with agentic AI slop

Reproduced from the LSE impact blog.

Science prides itself on being self-correcting. While scientific fakery has always been a problem, cases of fraud have been isolated, and a combination of scepticism and scrutiny has up to now generally worked to highlight published papers that are unreliable. The 30 minute paper However, the world of research and publishing is changing. The introduction of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) allows an automated assembly line of research tasks without any human checkpoints.

On slowing down

Last month I wrote a piece in Nature to announce that I’m going to halve my research output. For me, the reasons are clear. Publication numbers are skyrocketing and are now being supercharged by researchers using AI to write papers. Many papers are now created simply to pad CVs and have no scientific value. The scientific community needs to be careful with the limited resource that is peer review and must focus on quality over quantity.

Testing baseline tables in trials for signs of fraud

When fraudsters make up research data, they can make mistakes. Real data is rich and complex whilst fraudsters are on a get-rich-quick scheme and make slapdash errors. One mistake they make is in randomised trials, where it’s standard to have a baseline table that compares the randomised groups. As the groups are randomised, the summary statistics should be similar. Fraudsters have no sense of ‘similar’ and so have created data where the groups are nearly identical.

Painting a picture of research fraud

Originally published in the Deeble and AusHSI newsletter. Vincent van Gogh only sold a few paintings during his lifetime and died a poor man. After he died, his sister-in-law, Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, cleverly built his reputation and created a thriving market for his paintings. Recent sales have been over USD $80 million. Vincent was both truly gifted and desperately unlucky. Soon after his paintings started to sell, van Gogh was the victim of fraud.

Aggravating acronyms (AA)

My eleven year-old uses lots of words that go over my head, such as “skibidi”, “bruh” and “floptropica”. I’m not meant to understand their conversations and that’s rad. I also struggle to understand many scientific papers. Sometimes it’s my fault, as I’m too tired or too dumb. But sometimes it’s the authors’ fault, as they’ve drowned their ideas in verbiage and acronyms. We wrote a fun paper showing that scientific papers are using more acronyms.