About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: China’s scientific publishing black market, how to blow the whistle, and more

with 7 comments

booksIt’s been a busy week here at Retraction Watch, with breaking news about hotly debated papers from Nature and about GMOs, but there have been interesting stories about retractions and scientific misconduct elsewhere, too. Here’s a sampling:

Happy reading!
About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

November 30, 2013 at 9:30 am

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “The editor of a journal that published a paper by bogus authors tells his side of the story.” — The link refers to the RW entry, not to the story of the editor. Could that be fixed? Thanks!


    November 30, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    • Fixed — thanks.


      November 30, 2013 at 1:16 pm

      • $41.95 to read this if one does not have an institutional subscription!

        D. G. Rossiter

        December 2, 2013 at 3:56 am

        • And those 41.95 $ would be completely wasted. That editorial consists of merely 964 words which mainly reiterate what was said in the original retraction watch story. For that money you could buy 3-4 books. One wonders what business model Elsevier has. Who ever pays that sum for one article? Even going to your local university library for that stuff would be too much labor.

          Rolf Degen

          December 2, 2013 at 9:01 am

          • For me, 41.95$ is a day’s meals for me and my family. Yes, the greed model is definately in place in science publishing. Show me one publisher that pays scientists royalties. Several contracts, especially for books, are cleverly drafted so that the royalty for editors looks good, but only once a minimum number of units is sold, which almost never happens, of is almost never reported by the publisher to the editors. The worst part, and this is my latest gripe with Springer, is that editors are getting two free books and a low % royalty, while the authors. the true intellectual contributors who put good food on the tables of the CEOs, get a handsome reward: a PDF file with a water-mark “Author’s personal copy”. Our intellect is gradually being ridiculed and diminished by pseudo-ethics, marketing prowess and brain-dead editor boards (that comment applies to much more than Springer journals). The worst thing about the Nature and Science papers (and its not related to the publishers) is that even when we contact the corresponding authors for a copy of that PDF, they fail to provide it. One of the basic responsibilities of a scientist is to provide that academic record when another academic requests it. Almost every aspect of publishing a paper nowadays is starting to get so frustrating.


            December 2, 2013 at 3:29 pm

  2. The newsfocus published by M. Hvistendahl (behind a paywall) is particularly scaring, and don’t really support the optimistic claims done by W. Yang, President of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, in an Editorial published in the same issue of Science magazine (“Research Integrity in China”; DOI: 10.1126/science.1247700).

    Sylvain Bernès

    November 30, 2013 at 2:53 pm

  3. what about the offers we receive everyday for a keynote address, plenary lecture, chairing a session and invited speaker availability….how are they being done?


    November 30, 2013 at 6:49 pm

We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,846 other followers

%d bloggers like this: