Weekend reads: Vaccine research fraudster to plead guilty; nonsense authors publish another paper

booksThis week at Retraction Watch witnessed the fall of a “golden boy” and a “NASA Patriot Boy.” Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

5 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Vaccine research fraudster to plead guilty; nonsense authors publish another paper”

  1. NPG + Springer Science + Business Media? I am really worried with this news. This is going to be a massive game changer, potentially placing (if numbers here are accurate*) this new group as the second largest STM publisher on the planet. We have, scientists, the enormous responsibility of pro-activey analyzing the already published literature of these publishers’ journals. Recent events, at least in the plant sciences, are revealing how many flaws exist in the Nature nest of journals as well as in Springer S&BM’s journal and book collection. Post-publication peer review is going to require a concerted effort to hold these publishers accountable for what they have published but for which they are still reaping massive profits.

    * http://journalseek.net/publishers.htm

    1. That said, I was browsing through some Springer biotech journal titles today, when I noticed something rather curious: the migration of one more Springer journal to DeGruyter:
      It would be interesting to know the background behind such migrations, e.g., unsatisfied editors or society, lower costs, different benefits? Any insight welcome because, at the end of the day, scientists’ work are being floated around from publishing house to publishing house. In such a volatile publishing environment, we need to understand how our rights as authors change, including copyrights.

      Personally, for me it is important because I have noticed, increasing considerably in 2014, a very fierce resistance by Springer plant science editors to address issues, to skirt them, and to, most importantly, continue to refuse the importance of post-publication peer review. IN almost 100% of cases that I am aware of that were reported to Springer about problematic papers were either ignored, or met with minimalistic effort to correct. Once the wider community understands that this is equal to a gross negligence of corporate responsibility, this NPG + Springer merger will come under even greater scrutiny, as wil their published literature.

      There is simply no way for publishers to escape post-publication peer review, because it relies on a deeper interpretation of already published facts.

  2. The secret of “How do you know if it is true ?” (J Bone and Joint Surgery Jan 2015) will remain hidden from those who can’t afford $35 to gain access.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.