The 12th Invest in ME Research Conference June, 2017, Part 2
MEMum presents the second article in a series of three about the recent 12th Invest In ME International Conference (IIMEC12) in London.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by natasa778, Apr 6, 2015.

  1. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes:
    2,453
    not sure if posted before?

    Washington Post, 27 March 2015

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
     
    adreno, Valentijn, Cheshire and 3 others like this.
  2. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,409
    Likes:
    34,769
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Sigh, and so it begins. I suspect its the "scientfic" culture that gives rise to this. Something has to change in the way science is published. If something organized is going on then a whole lot of research may need to be retracted.
     
    PeterPositive, Effi, August59 and 3 others like this.
  3. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes:
    17,138
    Yeah, "major publisher" of shitty open access journals.
     
    adreno and Never Give Up like this.
  4. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,250
    Likes:
    17,960
    So, not just for ME/CFS where peer review has broken down in medical science?
     
    Valentijn and SOC like this.
  5. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,459
    [my bolding]
    Since when do authors suggest reviewers for their papers? Back in the oooold days when I was writing research papers, it was a matter of principle that we didn't know who had reviewed our papers. It was the responsibility of the journal to find reviewers who knew something about the topic. They typically did that by simply looking up other papers written in the field and requesting those authors review other papers in the same field. Not that difficult, as far as I could tell. Reputable journals made sure that review responsibilities were spread among many researchers so that a bias wouldn't develop. The method wasn't perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than being allowed to suggest your friends and cronies review your paper. :rolleyes:

    Has scientific publication changed that much over the years, or do publication rules differ this much between branches of science?
     
    alex3619 and Valentijn like this.
  6. Valentijn

    Valentijn WE ARE KINA

    Messages:
    14,280
    Likes:
    45,783
    Based on what we see from the Lancet, they seem to think it's pretty normal to have a close relationship with some "researchers", and to strongly advocate on behalf of their theories. If they thought that might cause outrage in the academic world, they probably wouldn't have been so obvious about it.
     
    natasa778, mango, SOC and 2 others like this.
  7. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,942
    England (south coast)
    I don't agree the open access automatically equates to poor quality, and that long-established journals are better quality. PLoSONE, for example, seems to have a particularly high level of quality control and implements good practice strategies, such as requiring authors to make their data available. BioMed Central have removed these papers whereas other journals might be more tempted to cover up issues. The Lancet posted incorrect information about recovery rates in the PACE trial and it took a complaint to the UK's Press Complaints Commission by the Countess of Mar to get any admission that they had published an opinion rather than a fact.
     
  8. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,942
    England (south coast)
    I think most journals ask you to suggest reviewers these days when submitting a paper. And I'm pretty sure the psychiatric lobby review each other's papers. I wouldn't be surprised if the peer review process for cognitive-behavioural research is very incestuous. I think they probably struggle to get enough peer reviewers because it's an unpaid job and people have got to do it in their spare time.
     
    mango, alex3619, Cheshire and 2 others like this.
  9. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,409
    Likes:
    34,769
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    I have suggested before that this is going on in ME and CFS research, particularly in the UK. It does not have to be a conspiracy though, as the number of claimed "experts" who can be called on is probably quite small, so they review each other and keep alternative hypotheses at bay.

    PS What @Bob said.
     
    mango, Valentijn and Bob like this.
  10. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes:
    17,138
    I don't agree either that open access automatically equates to poor quality but overall the quality of open access journals is much lower than that of traditional journals and this particular publisher publishes a lot of journals churning out poor quality papers whose only purpose is CV padding.
     
  11. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes:
    17,138
    I don't know but in medical journals most journals will ask for names and contact information of suggested reviewers when you're submitting a manuscript. I think this is quite reasonable. How else is a journal editor supposed to select peer reviewers? He/she cannot be expected to know the authorities in every narrow area of specialisation.

    The odd journal also allows you to name reviewers you don't want reviewing your paper. Sometimes people have a personal grudge against you. Every discipline also has elderly legacy-protecting cranks who want to block other people from publishing work critiquing the status quo by writing hostile reviews regardless of the quality of the work.
     
    mango and Valentijn like this.
  12. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,459
    Reviewing has always been an unpaid job, but it was considered part of your professional responsibilities. Your own research organization expected you to review papers so that its papers would get reviewed by other people. It's all part of the process. So while technically reviewing is unpaid, all research organizations permitted their researchers to review papers as part of their work day. Review time is just overhead in a research institution.
     
    Bob, adreno, mango and 1 other person like this.
  13. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,459
    The way they always did it -- by looking up papers in the same field. They're professional journals, after all. They have access to many, many papers and researchers. All papers are tagged with topic keywords, so it's not even a tricky search. Journals also consulted professional organizations in the field to get lists of members. It's really not that hard. It's certainly better than being allowed to recommend your friends and supporters as reviewers.

    That makes sense to me. With all the available researchers in the world, there shouldn't be a problem with asking that one or two cranks not be on your reviewer list.
     
    mango likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page