Do you notice anything unusual or potentially problematic with this reference list?

  1. Hunter J. Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012;6:63. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00063
  2. Bik EM, STAT News. The dark side of post-publication peer review. 2016. Available from: https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/22/post-publication-peer-review-pubpeer/
  3. Oransky I. A new kind of watchdog is shaking up research. Nature. 2019;571:7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02054-z.
  4. Teixeira da Silva JA. The weaponization of publishing: a case study of a predatory vigilante (PubPeer). Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23(5):1511 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9831-2
Answer
The references 2, 3, and 4 do not exist, although they are mentioned in the reference list. How can it happen?
The reference list entries has been worked out by ChatGPT, which generated or edited this reference list.

Many of the authors in this reference list, who are famous research integrity experts, have openly declared that they didn’t write such papers.

P.S. This reference list and the paper have been actively discussed on PubPeer.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/093D9AEBD8505660A5BE344266A73E


Made on
Tilda