由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
Faculty版 - 集体造假这个事没人提?
相关主题
no long required啥意思今天收到的一封email
review的时候,是不是都要给editor写confidential comments? (拿到K99, 麻烦也来了。。。
学术造假??Physics Letters 怎么这么乱
SCIENCE上也有灌水文章?!To retract them or not is a tough question.
[合集] Counter offer作者不公开程序代码怎么办
请问如何处理发表paper的错误某会计牛人出事了!
Quite a story: A Dark Tale Behind Two Retractions (转载)做实验脏乱差的学生怎么办
什么情况下文章撤调啊? 比方说这位同胞的!刚发表不久的文章有个地方做错了怎么办啊?
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: authors话题: bmc话题: peer话题: reviewers话题: third
进入Faculty版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
M*P
发帖数: 6456
1
http://retractionwatch.com/2015/03/26/biomed-central-retracting
BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review
BioMed Central is retracting 43 papers, following their investigation into
50 papers that raised suspicions of fake peer review, possibly involving
third-party companies selling the service.
In November 2014 we wrote about fake peer reviews for Nature; at that point
there had been about 110 retractions across several journals. The addition
of 16 retractions by Elsevier for the same reason, and today’s 43 from BMC,
brings retractions resulting from the phenomenon up to about 170.
BMC has also contacted institutions regarding 60 additional papers that were
rejected for publication, but seem to be part of the same kind of scam.
Regarding the third-party agents, BMC senior editor of scientific integrity
Elizabeth Moylan writes:
Some of the manipulations appear to have been conducted by third-party
agencies offering language-editing and submission assistance to authors. It
is unclear whether the authors of the manuscripts involved were aware that
the agencies were proposing fabricated reviewers on their behalf or whether
authors proposed fabricated names directly themselves.
When we asked for more information on these third parties, a representative
for the journal told us:
We’ve been told some things in confidence that we’re not reporting on our
blog, and the reason we’re not is we don’t have enough evidence to point
fingers. What we’ve done all along is point out the patterns that we have
noticed, and we’ve talked to other publishers and we’ve talked to [the
Committee on Publishing Ethics] to make sure that people know how we’re
stopping them.
In an attempt to limit submission of fake peer reviewers, BMC has turned off
the automated system that let authors provide contact information for
potential reviewers, which we tapped in our Nature story as a major
contributor to the problem. Authors will still be able to suggest reviewers
in their cover letters.
BMC has also sent an email to editors of BMC journals that addresses the
retractions and how peer review suggestions will function without an
automated option:
We appreciate that this functionality is useful and timesaving, but we
believe it is the ease with which author suggested reviewer suggestions can
be ‘clicked’ through that made it possible for authors or third party
agencies to manipulate our systems. It would not be appropriate to switch
the facility back on for some journals and not for others, so with this in
mind and in the absence of any secure means of protecting against such
manipulation across all of our 250+ journals we have made the decision to
leave this functionality switched off.
Authors will still be able to suggest potential peer reviewers in their
cover letter on submission. We are updating the submission system to inform
authors on how they can suggest reviewers and also updating our Information
for Authors pages to tell authors that they may use their cover letter to
suggest reviewers, but that they should provide institutional email
addresses where possible, or information which will help the editor to
verify the identity of the reviewer. Editors who find author suggestions
useful and are happy to implement some simple checks on the validity of the
suggestions are welcome to ask authors to suggest potential peer reviewers
in their cover letter.
Here’s the text BMC is using for the notices, most of which have gone live:
The Publisher and Editor regretfully retract this article [1] because the
peer-review process was inappropriately influenced and compromised. As a
result, the scientific integrity of the article cannot be guaranteed. A
systematic and detailed investigation suggests that a third party was
involved in supplying fabricated details of potential peer reviewers for a
large number of manuscripts submitted to different journals. In accordance
with recommendations from COPE we have retracted all affected published
articles, including this one. It was not possible to determine beyond doubt
that the authors of this particular article were aware of any third party
attempts to manipulate peer review of their manuscript.
We are waiting on the full list of retracted papers, but in the meantime,
here’s what comes up from a Google search of the retraction notice. We
found at least seven in the Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.
M*P
发帖数: 6456
2
http://www.liuyangshi.cn/jiaoyu/jiaoyudongtai/2015/0330/52150.h
美媒称,一家学术性的医学和科学文章出版社,由于“伪造”的同行评审而撤回43篇论
文。而且有迹象显示,广泛存在的虚假同行评审正在影响更多的出版物。
据美国《华盛顿邮报》3月27日报道,这家出版商是总部设在英国的BMC出版社,
出版277种经过同行评审的期刊。被撤回论文的不完全名单显示,其中大部分论文的作
者来自中国的大学,包括中国医科大学、四川大学、山东大学和上海交大医学院。
与此同时,出版伦理委员会(一个包括各种学科在内的组织,会员包括9000多名期
刊主编)发表了一项声明,表示这一问题的范围可能更大。声明说,该委员会“了解到
有人试图操纵不同出版商的好几家刊物的同行评审过程”。声明说,这些期刊现正在审
查原稿,以决定需要撤回多少论文。
同行评审是一个旨在保证学术论文真实性的数据核实过程,专家在阅读论文后决定
该论文能否出版。由于研究人员越来越渴望得到认可、褒奖以及学术上的发展,甚至不
惜为此铤而走险,所以整个同行评审体系近年来开始接受审查,一些缺陷和不足浮出水
面,包括敷衍评审、给友情分甚至还有彻底的学术欺诈。
去年,在一个众所周知的丑闻中,声学领域的《振动与控制》期刊由于发现了“同
行评审和引用团伙”的存在而一次性撤回了60篇论文。该团伙捏造假名或冒名提交评审
,其成员大多是来自台湾的学者。
“撤稿监察”是一个追查研究真实性以及首个报道BMC出版社事件的博客。其共同
博主伊万·奥兰斯基和亚当·马库斯统计说,过去几年有多个刊物的170篇论文因虚假
同行评审而被撤回。
BMC出版社关于研究真实性方面的资深编辑伊丽莎白·莫伊伦昨天在博客上发帖说
,去年开始的一项调查发现了一种推荐假冒的评审者来“欺骗”编辑的阴谋。她写道,
有些“行为”似乎是机构所为,这些机构向母语为非英语的论文作者提供文字修改润色
和论文提交方面的服务。
她写道:“现在不清楚的是,卷入造假事件的作者是否知道这些机构代表他们提供
了虚假的评审者,还是作者本人直接提供的伪造名字。”
出版伦理委员会在其声明中说:“尽管有一些声誉不错的机构向作者提供手稿准备
服务,但对数家期刊的调查表明,有些机构也提供包括出售手稿署名权以及提供虚假同
行评审者的联系方式、然后从伪造地址提交评审等服务。其中有些同行评审者的名字似
乎与真正的研究人员的名字是一样的,但电子邮件地址却是假的,还有一些人似乎完全
就是虚构的。”
英国BMC出版社发表的有问题的文章现正在被撤回,所附的撤回声明说:“出版社
和编辑遗憾地撤回了这篇文章,因为同行评审过程存在问题。因此,这篇文章的学术真
实性不能得到保证。”
到目前为止,英国BMC出版社撤回的43篇论文中有38篇的题目被公布。这些论文都
拥有非常专业的名称和主题。

point
BMC,
were

【在 M*P 的大作中提到】
: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/03/26/biomed-central-retracting
: BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review
: BioMed Central is retracting 43 papers, following their investigation into
: 50 papers that raised suspicions of fake peer review, possibly involving
: third-party companies selling the service.
: In November 2014 we wrote about fake peer reviews for Nature; at that point
: there had been about 110 retractions across several journals. The addition
: of 16 retractions by Elsevier for the same reason, and today’s 43 from BMC,
: brings retractions resulting from the phenomenon up to about 170.
: BMC has also contacted institutions regarding 60 additional papers that were

h*********i
发帖数: 494
3
应该把那些PI都列入黑名单
1 (共1页)
进入Faculty版参与讨论
相关主题
刚发表不久的文章有个地方做错了怎么办啊?[合集] Counter offer
What kind of misconducts could make a tenured "Jiaosou" get fired?请问如何处理发表paper的错误
遇到烂杂志 怎么处理这问题Quite a story: A Dark Tale Behind Two Retractions (转载)
博后老板拖你怎么办什么情况下文章撤调啊? 比方说这位同胞的!
no long required啥意思今天收到的一封email
review的时候,是不是都要给editor写confidential comments? (拿到K99, 麻烦也来了。。。
学术造假??Physics Letters 怎么这么乱
SCIENCE上也有灌水文章?!To retract them or not is a tough question.
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: authors话题: bmc话题: peer话题: reviewers话题: third