MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402419317 · doi:10.11124/jbies-24-00167

Tools, techniques, methods, and processes for the detection and mitigation of fraudulent or erroneous data in evidence synthesis: a scoping review protocol

2024· review· en· W4402419317 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy Hugh Barker, Grace McKenzie McBride, Amanda Ross‐White, Danielle Pollock, Cindy Stern, Sabira Hasanoff, Raju Kanukula, Mafalda M. Dias, Anna Mae Scott, Edoardo Aromataris, Ashley Whitehorn, Jennifer Stone, Larissa Shamseer, Patrick Palmieri, Miloslav Klugar, Zachary Munn

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewChecklistBest practiceProtocol (science)Computer scienceCompromiseData scienceManagement sciencePsychologyMEDLINEMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact. INTRODUCTION: Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence-typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care. However, with the rise of "predatory journals," fraudulent or erroneous data may be invading this literature, which may negatively affect evidence syntheses that use this data. This, in turn, may compromise decision-making processes. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include peer-reviewed articles, commentaries, books, and editorials that describe at least 1 tool, technique, method, or process with the explicit purpose of identifying or mitigating the impact of fraudulent or erroneous data for any evidence synthesis, in any topic area. Manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations, universities, and libraries will also be considered. METHODS: This review will be conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases and relevant organizational websites will be searched for eligible studies. Title and abstract, and, subsequently, full-text screening will be conducted in duplicate. Data from identified full texts will be extracted using a pre-determined checklist, while the findings will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/u8yrn.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.333
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.327
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3330.327
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.014
Bibliometrics0.0250.019
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0070.013
Research integrity0.0130.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.033

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.707
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.080 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207