Weekend reads: Pseudoscience in the literature; a world without journals; “invisible and abandoned” trials

The week at Retraction Watch featured the heartfelt response of a researcher when she found out a paper she’d reviewed had been retracted, and a new member of our leaderboard.  Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

4 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Pseudoscience in the literature; a world without journals; “invisible and abandoned” trials”

  1. It is a huge problem that reviewers contribute to open access publishing without pay. Most open-access publishing is commercial, often extracting huge fees from authors, to whose publications reviewers contribute, while also unwittingly contributing to the business behind even bona fide open access publishing houses. In principle, all publishing of scientifc papers must be free of charge, in which case reviewers will also happily and willingly work to ensure the highest possible standard without pay.

    1. Closed access journals run by commercial publishers also extract money from universities and exploit the free labour of reviewers and editors. It’s just taken through university library subscriptions rather than from individual researchers’ pockets. One could argue that this system is even more insidious than open access publishing because publishers tend to keep good relations with their victims, who don’t directly feel the financial impact of their exploitation.

  2. Its important that people refuse to review for these journals – generally, low quality researchers support them so they can be isolated and in time th shame of publishing there will scare off future submissions.

  3. >>Three senior doctors at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in >>India have been charged with plagiarism, in a first for the institution. (Shimona Kanwar, >>The Economic Times).
    Re: this report, it sounds more like outright scientific fraud, not ‘just’ plagiarism. The linked article alleges that biopsy samples described in a publication were probably never taken/examined in the pathology lab.

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.