Weekend reads: Conflict of interest debate roils on; fake peer review scams; amateur hour at journals

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper by a journalist in Australia … Continue reading Weekend reads: Conflict of interest debate roils on; fake peer review scams; amateur hour at journals

Sturgeon researcher nets 13 retractions for fake peer review

A fish scientist in Iran has now lost 13 papers about the properties of Sturgeon sperm — try saying that five times fast — and other ichthyological topics over concerns about faked peer review. The three most recent retractions come from the Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. According to the notice:

Weekend reads: Fallout from misconduct at Duke; does journal prestige matter?; the data on fake peer review

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation of $25, or a recurring donation of an amount of your choosing, to support it?  The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper on a “gut makeover,” a retraction following … Continue reading Weekend reads: Fallout from misconduct at Duke; does journal prestige matter?; the data on fake peer review

Publisher issues first retractions for fake peer review, starts new checking policy

The publisher Frontiers has retracted four papers in three of its journals after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews. The problem of fake reviews has been on the research community’s radar since at least 2014, and several major publishers—including Springer, SAGE and BioMed Central—have retracted hundreds of papers accepted via fake peer … Continue reading Publisher issues first retractions for fake peer review, starts new checking policy

Weekend reads: Fired for fake peer review; world’s most prolific fraudster; peer reviewers behaving badly?

The week at Retraction Watch featured a post on just how much an authorship costs if you want to buy one, anger over charges to use a common research tool, and the revocation of a PhD from a once-rising star scientist. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Fake peer review, forged authors, fake funding: Everything’s wrong with brain cancer paper

The paper had everything: Fake peer review, forged authors, even a fake funder. In other words, it had nothing. A 2015 paper is the latest retraction stemming from an investigation into fake peer review by Springer, which has now netted more than a hundred papers. According to a spokesperson at Springer:

Fake peer review strikes again for pair of authors

Two authors who had a paper retracted for fake peer review in 2015 have lost another for the same reason. Elsevier recently retracted the second paper by the duo, a 2015 paper in a cancer journal, after finding evidence of fake peer review. The paper was submitted in October 2014 and accepted just a week … Continue reading Fake peer review strikes again for pair of authors

Weekend reads: Prison for sharing an article?; which country has most fake peer review retractions; counterfeit reagents

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at a school where everyone has published in possibly predatory journals, and doubts about a study of doing math unconsciously. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: New calls for retraction; more on fake peer review; how long does peer review take?

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at how long journals take to respond to retraction requests, and news of a $10 million settlement for research misconduct allegations. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

A new record: Major publisher retracting more than 100 studies from cancer journal over fake peer reviews

Springer is retracting 107 papers from one journal after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews. Yes, 107. To submit a fake review, someone (often the author of a paper) either makes up an outside expert to review the paper, or suggests a real researcher — and in both cases, provides a fake … Continue reading A new record: Major publisher retracting more than 100 studies from cancer journal over fake peer reviews