Paper Mills Research (Resource: COPE | June 2022)
COPE and STM undertook a study with Maverick Publishing Services, using data from publishers, to understand the scale of the
COPE and STM undertook a study with Maverick Publishing Services, using data from publishers, to understand the scale of the
As long term readers of this feed know, too many journal publishers do a pretty poor job of highlighting when an article of theirs is retracted. So it will not be a surprise when an article published on a preprint server that is published by a traditional publisher is retracted, it can remain on the preprint server without annotation. This is a significant concern because a paper that is compromised or otherwise dodgy can endure and continue to pollute the academic record and potentially undermine good practice. We have included links to five related items.
We have noted before with concern: (i) the slow speed of retractions and the degree to which they’re not clearly indicated by publishers; and (ii) the continued citation of retracted papers and their damage to academic knowledge, the continuation of whacky theories and potential harm to consumers. We have also expressed our admiration for preprints, the speed by which academic knowledge is shared and the democratisation of academic knowledge. This item by Scholarly Kitchen poses an interesting and troubling question when a preprinted item that has been published by a traditional publisher is later retracted, what happens to the preprint? Does it remain in the academic ethos corrupting knowledge and practice?
Science papers and their interaction with old media, social media and discussion within the general public have a problem. They are seeding, fueling and maintaining conspiracy theories, whacky ideas and misinformation. The damage being done is real and enduring. COVID-19 has just highlighted what has always been there. It is time we recognise the problem and institutions start doing more about it. This is a form of research misconduct that does real damage.
In this post for the London School of Economics Blog, Derek Lowe expresses frustration that many of us feel, too many researchers are sliding through after publishing dodgy research and dodgy images with only the slightest of criticism and very few consequences. All of this flawed work corrupts the scientific record. When you also factor in work from paper mills, as well as work that has appeared in questionable publishers we find an intolerable amount of crap. Something needs to change.
For people with a strong views on AI (that is Artificial Intelligence for the folk with a horticultural background) will either be excited or horrified by the news some journals are using AI to detect duplicated images in papers. Gary’s household has the three possible attitudes on AI (Gary: Is excited by the potential of people collaborating with smart systems. Renay: Is horrified by images conjured by popular fiction. Connar: Believes that we are along way away from genuine general AI). Given who is writing this commentary, let us just say it is fantastic to see human editors using smart tools to spot when cheats try to use images copied from elsewhere.
NSWHSB EXTERNAL SEMINAR SERIES 2022 About this event Dr Lisa Parker is a university researcher and ethicist at School of
The African Research Integrity Network should be congratulated for this step, which will be especially helpful for research that involves collaboration between countries in the African continent. In our experience, Research Integrity programs are most effective when they are focussed on good practice, rather than the handling of research misconduct.