In S. Bernecker, A. K. Flowerree & T. Grundmann (eds.), The Epistemology of Fake News (forthcoming)

Authors
Erik J. Olsson
Lund University
Abstract
Fake news can originate from an ordinary person carelessly posting what turns out to be false information orfrom the intentional actions of fake news factory workers,but broadly speaking it can also originate from scientific fraud. In the latter case, the article can be retracted upon discovery of the fraud. A case study shows, however, that such fake sciencecan be visible in Google even after the article was retracted, in fact more visible thanthe retraction notice. We hypothesize that the reason for this lies in the popularity-based logic governing Google, in particular its foundational PageRank algorithm,in conjunction with a psychological law which we refer to as the “law of retraction”: a retraction notice is typically taken to be less interestingand therefore less popular with internet users than the original content retracted. We conduct anempiricalstudy drawing on records of articles retracted due to fraud in the Retraction Watch public database. The study tests the extent to which such retracted scientific articles are still highly ranked in Google –and more so than information about the retraction. We find, among other things, thatboth Google Search and Google Scholar more often than not rankeda link to the original article higher than a link indicating that the article has been retracted.Surprisingly, Google Scholar did not perform better in this regard than Google Search.We also foundcases in which Google didnot track the retraction of anarticle on the first result page at all.We conclude thatboth Google Search and Google Scholar runthe risk of disseminating fake science through theirranking algorithms.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2020
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 55,981
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Do We Trust Blindly on the Web?Emmanuel Genot & Erik J. Olsson - 2017 - Societé Editrice Il Mulino 1:87-106.
Retraction.[author unknown] - 2009 - Educational Studies 35 (2):237.
Retraction.[author unknown] - 2011 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111 (3pt3):519-519.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Retractions in Science.K. Brad Wray & Line Edslev Andersen - 2018 - Scientometrics 117 (3):2009-2019.
What is Fake News?M. R. X. Dentith - 2018 - University of Bucharest Review (2):24-34.
What is Fake News?Romy Jaster & David Lanius - 2018 - Versus 2 (127):207-227.
Fake Journals: Not Always Valid Ways to Distinguish Them.Khaled Moustafa - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (5):1391-1392.
Suggestions to Enhance the Scholarly Search Engine: Google Scholar.Ibrahim M. Nasser, Mohammed M. Elsobeihi & Samy S. Abu Naser - 2019 - International Journal of Engineering and Information Systems (IJEAIS) 3 (3):11-16.
Aesthetics of Fake. An Overview.Andrea Mecacci - 2016 - Aisthesis: Pratiche, Linguaggi E Saperi Dell’Estetico 9 (2):59-69.
Detecting Errors That Result in Retractions.Line Edslev Andersen & K. Brad Wray - 2019 - Social Studies of Science 46 (6):942-954.
Fake Identities in Social Network Research: To Be Disclosed?Shunhai Qu & Viroj Wiwanitkit - 2014 - Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (4):1151-1151.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-04-02

Total views
21 ( #488,463 of 2,403,518 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #156,285 of 2,403,518 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes