Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Authors object after Springer Nature journal cedes to publisher Frontiers’ demand for retraction – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | September 2021)

Posted by Connar Allen in Research Integrity on December 20, 2022
Keywords: Conflicts of interest, Institutional responsibilities, Journal, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On September 7, 2021

Argue, arguing concept. Beautiful female half-length portrait isolated on pink studio backgroud. Young emotional surprised woman looking at camera.Human emotions, facial expression concept. Front view

The authors of a paper taking a major database to task for including papers from allegedly predatory journals are objecting to the retraction of the article, which followed a request by one of the publishers mentioned in the analysis.

A great deal of money can be made by questionable publishers.  But only if they have not been publicly identified as being questionable.  It is a significant concern that a publisher has been able to influence the retraction of a paper that identified them as being questionable.  There will of course be situations where a publisher has been misidentified as being questionable, but the rationale for the retraction of the paper needs to be disclosed and the reasoning of the journal explained.

And at least one of the journal’s editorial board members is considering resigning over the move.

The paper, “Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences,” was published in Scientometrics, a Springer Nature journal, on February 7. It used Jeffrey Beall’s now-defunct list of allegedly predatory publishers to identify relevant journals. The next day, the study’s findings were the subject of a news story in Nature.

On May 6, Fred Fenter, chief executive editor of Frontiers, a publisher which figured in the analysis, sent Scientometrics editor Wolfgang Glänzel a letter, obtained by Retraction Watch, demanding that the paper be retracted immediately. Much of the letter is a critique of Beall’s list, which has certainly come under fire before. Fenter — whose criticisms of of the list prompted an investigation by Beall’s university, after which Beall eventually retired — writes:

This “data source” is biased, unreliable, unvalidated, and unavailable – and thoroughly unsound for a scientific article. For these, and additional reasons below, this article must be immediately retracted.

Screenshot of an academic publication.
Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study
The authors of a paper taking a major database to task for including papers from allegedly predatory journals are objecting to the retraction of the article, which followed a request by one of the publishers mentioned in the analysis.

Related Reading

Scabies! – Statistical Modelling, Causal Inference, and Social Science (Andrew Gelman | November 2021)

Has COPE membership become a way for unprincipled journals to buy a fake badge of integrity? – Dr Peter Wilmhurst Blog (Dr Peter Wilmhurst | November 2022)

Opinion: Why Won’t Academia Let Go of ‘Publish or Perish’? – Undark (Paul M. Sutter | June 2022)

Great citations: how to avoid referencing questionable evidence – Times Higher Education (Dmitry Malkov | July 2022)

(Russia) Top Russian university officials’ predatory publishing record points to deeper malaise – Chemistry World (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | July 2022)

How Much Published Crap Will We Put Up With? – Science (Derek Lowe | February 2022)

Research Has a “Trash Island.” Some Are Trying to Clean it Up – Proto (Stephen Ornes | May 2022)

An expert’s opinion: Interview with Ivan Oransky on the perils of scientific publishing – European Science-Media Hub (May 2022)

Predatory publishing 2.0: Why it is still a thing and what we can do about it – PLOS Community (Andreas Vilhelmsson | April 2022)

(UK) UUK ‘should sue predatory publishers over tsunami of spam’ – Times Higher Education (Jack Grove | July 2021)

The Troubling Allure of Predatory Publishing – The Goodmen Project (Research Outreach | October 2021)

Wilfully submitting to and publishing in predatory journals – a covert form of research misconduct? (Papers: Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh & Bor Luen Tang | August 2021)

(Pakistan) The rising menace of scholarly black-market Challenges and solutions for improving research in low-and middle-income countries – JPMA Editorial (Aamir Raoof Memon, Farooq Azam Rathore | June 2021

Without stronger ethical standards, predatory publishing will continue to be a permanent feature of scholarly communication – London School of Economics Impact Blog (Panagiotis Tsigaris and Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva | March 2021)

(South Africa) Publish, profit, predate, perish and peer review – University World News (Patrick Fish | October 2020)

Questionable publishing practice? Are you harmed?

There is no black and white definition of predatory publishing – London School of Economics (Kyle Siler | May 2020)

Demarcating Spectrums of Predatory Publishing: Economic and Institutional Sources of Academic Legitimacy (PrePrint Papers: Kyle Siler | June 2018)

(Australia) Thousands of researchers in Australia appear on editorial boards of ‘predatory’ journals – Nature Index (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | April 2020)

Pondering on whether to submit your research output to a journal?

Mentors help authors say “no” to predatory journals – Elsevier Connect (Marilynn Larkin | November 2018)

NIH to researchers: Don’t publish in bad journals, please – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | December 2017)

Continuing Steps to Ensuring Credibility of NIH Research: Selecting Journals with Credible Practices – Extramural Nexus (Mike Lauer | November 2017)

Identifying Predatory or Pseudo-Journals – WAME (Christine Laine & Margaret A. Winker | February 2017)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in