“Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
retractionwatch.wordpress.com
“Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
#2Important issue. It is good to see Elsevier, a publisher often thought to be more concerned with profits, highlighting the problem.
Re: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
#3And those are the ones who do a sloppy enough job to get caught.
Re: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
#4Kind of ironic that we have lawyers from elsevier talking about misconduct when they have this http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27383/... in their closet as well as sundry other things.
On the other hand, maybe they really are trying to improve themselves and I am being too judgemental.
Re: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
#5On a vaguely related note, I know of a crystallographer who would send out Christmas cards every year that looked like postcards with a partial, yet to be published, crystal structure as the image. One year, one of the crystallographers he sent the card out to figured out which protein it was, reconstructed the density map (partially from his own data on the same molecule, partially from the solved structure on the card) and published the first PDB for it to RCSB. The following tiff and yelling about academic misconduct was pretty funny. They wound up taking down the PDB, but the guy's never sent out another postcard-like Christmas card
Re: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
#6What happens to them, are they blacklisted from future publications?
Re: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
#7You can't enforce such a brutal publish or perish pressure on someone's livelihood without selecting to some extent for people who will abuse the system. I personally think the whole system is fundamentally flawed, given the extent to which it relies upon trust. You're operating a very, very competitive market, where the integrity of the 'product' is almost entirely self-verified.
Re: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
#8I've said as much in the article comments, but it's worth repeating here: there's really no surprise that this sort of thing happens when more than a million articles are published every year.
There is so much pressure on researchers to publish. I really do think the way to solve this sort of problem is to find ways to give researchers credit for other forms of contributions.
This is what figshare is doing with datasets, and what we're doing with peer-review: http://blog.publons.com/post/61380784056/announcing-doi-supp...
Re: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
#9Half the plagiarism violations are "self-plagiarism", which I assume means copying from your own previously published works. Hardly seems like such an ethical problem to copy from yourself except of course if you're paid by the word.
Re: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
#10Half the plagiarism violations are "self-plagiarism", which I assume means copying from your own previously published works. Hardly seems like such an ethical problem to copy from yourself except of course if you're paid by the word.
It increases the amount of crap out there, plus it pads the CV