Academic fraud factories are booming, warns plagiarism sleuth – Times Higher Education (Jack Grove | January 2022)
Firms that sell co-authorship on papers accepted by reputable journals are likely turning over millions of pounds a year Paper
Firms that sell co-authorship on papers accepted by reputable journals are likely turning over millions of pounds a year Paper
Abstract Scholars engage with so-called predatory or questionable journals for many different reasons. Among the contributing factors are monetary payoffs
This The Conversation piece makes an important point about the serious damage done to clinical practice and public practice by retracted papers. It is a point we have made a few times. The reality is, no medical practice should be based just on a single paper. The sector needs a better way of highlighting a paper has been retracted. We have included links to eight related items.
In this fascinating piece Retraction Watch co-founder Ivan Oransky, looks the ratio of retracted papers to the total published papers, ponders if things have improved (#SpoilerAlert they haven’t), bemoans the terrible handling of what time is being done scientific record, any calls us all do better.
This interesting Inside Higher Ed piece calls upon those of us that are enthusiastic about open access publications (scholarly work not being locked behind paywalls) and preprint publication (work reaching us faster) have an important responsibility. We count ourselves aongst that loud band of fans. Even though the impact of APC fees on researchers in low and middle income countries has tempered somewhat our enthusiasm for open access. We all need to lift our game in terms of junk science and the work of charlatans. Parts of our response need to be in changed professional development, faster and clearer retractions, tougher penalties for preprinted research misconduct and better recognition for those who make a positive contribution to research culture.
This is an academic integrity, rather than research integrity, story but we thought the numbers startling enough to include in our newsfeed. We also suspect that someone who has got away with cheating on an academic assignment by purchasing a paper from a paper from a paper mill is likely to be inclined to try the same cheat with a research output. As this piece discusses, there is no reason to believe this worrying situation is limited to one Australian University or that this problem is confined only to Australia. Academic institutions must have a strong policies with regards to paper mills and countries must also take serious stamps to try and tackle their use.
In recent years it has been posited that our current approach to research evaluation, research metrics and international ranking are fuelling poor practice and distorting academia into something unrecognisable. It is a concern we share. Volumes of published research trash is polluting academic knowledge and undermining trust in science. This piece is Nature discusses a new and exciting approach in Europe. We believe that it is excellent practice that other jurisdictions should emulate.
A title retracting a couple of papers at once isn’t a good look. 350 across two titles is devastating to their reputations. But it should be conceded the publisher has put integrity ahead of reputation for which they should be commended. It is a ‘good’ example of why institutional should have guidance about the perils and risks of using translation software rather than experienced translators – especially when translating a translsation. We have included links to nine related items.