Retractions Revisited: A Replication, Extension, and Mechanistic Evaluation of Linguistic Obfuscation Effects in Fraudulent Science
Paper recorded by Signals 4 on 2026-10-09 in cs.CL. Abstract reproduced from arXiv; link to the original below.
Published 2026-10-09 on arXiv · recorded by Signals 4 on 2026-10-12
Category: cs.CL · 自然语言处理 · first seen 2026-10-12
Abstract
Prior work suggests fraudulent scientists write their articles with higher rates of linguistic obfuscation than genuine scientists, with a possible mechanism suggesting obfuscation makes research more costly for a reader to analyze. This result has not undergone additional empirical scrutiny in the open science era, nor have other psychological mechanisms been evaluated. The current replication an
Read on arXiv →
Cite this page: Retractions Revisited: A Replication, Extension, and Mechanistic Evaluation of Linguistic Obfuscation Effects in Fraudulent Science: the #279 most recent of 660 cs.CL papers we have recorded (as of 2026-10-09). Source: Signals 4 (Signals API) — https://data.jiangzhang.ca/signals4/t/papers/retractions-revisited-a-replication-extension-and-mechanistic-evaluation-of-ling.html
Free to quote with attribution to “Signals 4 (Signals API)”. Machine-readable:
papers.json
Get 4 AI signals a day by email — free.
Get 4 AI signals a day by email — free