Search Results for: citation stacking

Weekend reads: Fraud in gaming vs. fraud in science; ‘a scholarly screw-up of biblical proportions’; pregnant male rats

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: ‘A fig leaf that doesn’t quite cover up’: Commission says … Continue reading Weekend reads: Fraud in gaming vs. fraud in science; ‘a scholarly screw-up of biblical proportions’; pregnant male rats

Dismissive reviews: A cancer on the body of knowledge

Observers describe the quantity of research information now produced variously as “torrent,” “overload,” “proliferation,” or the like. Technological advances in computing and telecommunication have helped us keep up, to an extent. But, I would argue, scholarly and journalistic ethics have not kept pace. As a case in point, consider the journal article literature review. Its … Continue reading Dismissive reviews: A cancer on the body of knowledge

Weekend reads: The researcher who publishes a paper every two days; “are publishers learning from their mistakes?”; overcoming COVID-19 misinformation

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: A journal that took six years to retract a paper. … Continue reading Weekend reads: The researcher who publishes a paper every two days; “are publishers learning from their mistakes?”; overcoming COVID-19 misinformation

The positive case for suppression: A guest post from the editor in chief of Clarivate’s Web of Science

This is an invited guest post related to news about two suppression reversals announced today by Clarivate. The research process is rarely straightforward. There are a myriad of ways in which it can go wrong, from the inception of a hypothesis that goes on to be disproved, to failed experiments and rejected manuscripts, hopefully ending … Continue reading The positive case for suppression: A guest post from the editor in chief of Clarivate’s Web of Science

Journals punished by high-profile indexing service cry foul, demand a recount

A group of editors of journals focused on the history of economics has gone public to urge Clarivate Analytics, which publishes a highly influential ranking of journals, to reconsider its decision to drop the titles from this year’s index. Clarivate said it suppressed the titles because of apparent “citation stacking,” in which various editors agree … Continue reading Journals punished by high-profile indexing service cry foul, demand a recount

High-profile indexing service punishes 20 journals, issues unusual warning about five others

If scientific publishing were the World Cup, twenty scientific journals are being effectively taken out of competition today. And five others are being given a stern first-time warning. Every year, Clarivate Analytics, a company that indexes more than 11,000 journals — and which, in turn, designates their powerful, but controversial, Impact Factors and rankings, based … Continue reading High-profile indexing service punishes 20 journals, issues unusual warning about five others

One way to boost your uni’s ranking: Ask faculty to cite each other

Readers who follow scientific publishing will know the term “citation stacking” — as a profile-boosting technique, we’ve seen journals ask authors to cite them, and individual scientists work together to cite each other, forming “citation cartels.” And now, we’ve seen a university do it. A university in Malaysia has instructed its engineering faculty to cite … Continue reading One way to boost your uni’s ranking: Ask faculty to cite each other

Authors in 2014 peer review ring lose 4 more papers each for “compromised” review

A journal is pulling additional papers authored by twin brothers for peer review issues. After retracting three papers by Cheng-Wu Chen earlier this year for “compromised” peer review, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries is now pulling four more by Chen for the same reason — and four others by his twin brother, Chen-Yuan Chen, who was a … Continue reading Authors in 2014 peer review ring lose 4 more papers each for “compromised” review

Weekend reads: Duplication rampant in cancer research?; meet the data detective; journals behaving badly

This week saw us profiled in The New York Times and de Volkskrant, and the introduction of our new staff writer. We also launched The Retraction Watch Leaderboard. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: