shirgall Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 https://www.springer.com/gb/about-springer/media/statements/retraction-of-articles-from-springer-journals/735218 London | Heidelberg, 18 August 2015 Springer confirms that 64 articles are being retracted from 10 Springer subscription journals, after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports. After a thorough investigation we have strong reason to believe that the peer review process on these 64 articles was compromised. We reported this to the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) immediately. Attempts to manipulate peer review have affected journals across a number of publishers as detailed by COPE in their December 2014 statement. Springer has made COPE aware of the findings of its own internal investigations and has followed COPE’s recommendations, as outlined in their statement, for dealing with this issue. Springer will continue to participate and do whatever we can to support COPE’s efforts in this matter. The peer-review process is one of the cornerstones of quality, integrity and reproducibility in research, and we take our responsibilities as its guardians seriously. We are now reviewing our editorial processes across Springer to guard against this kind of manipulation of the peer review process in future. In all of this, our primary concern is for the research community. A research paper is the result of funding investment, institutional commitment and months of work by the authors, and publishing outputs affect careers, funding applications and institutional reputations. We have been in contact with the corresponding authors and institutions concerned, and will continue to work with them. It is entirely coincidental that I'm in Heidelberg this week... The list: http://link.springer.com/search?query=The+Publisher+and+Editor+retract+this+article+in+accordance+with+the+recommendations+of+the+Committee+on+Publication+Ethics+%28COPE%29&date-facet-mode=between&facet-start-year=2015&previous-start-year=1995&facet-end-year=2015&previous-end-year=2015 Relevant: RetractWatch -> http://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/17/64-more-papers-retracted-for-fake-reviews-this-time-from-springer-journals/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccuTron Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Thanks for yet more insight to the enormous world of fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 Thanks for yet more insight to the enormous world of fraud. When it gets more interesting is when the press blows some study way out of proportion but make nary a peep when that study is discredited or retracted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 All the authors of all the papers have ethnically asian names, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
things make sense Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 One more thing to note is that majority of the redacted papers are for clinical research. Clinical research is very messy and results are rarely reproduced. One of my friend in med school published over 8 clinical research papers while being a med student. It's pretty safe to assume that the quality of these papers are not particularly that great and I would consider them a tier below most basic research papers. I've read many 100s of papers and I consider majority of basic research papers to be mostly garbage anyway. So we're talking, the bottom of the bottom trash-feeders in the world of academia. It's not my intention to have this post drip with academic elitism or anything and I'm certainly not in a position of high authority, so take my opinions with a grain of salt! Also clinicians have hospital work to fall back on when their academic career is going down hill. It's a bit different with basic researchers because their life's work is on the line and require much more discretion with regards to committing fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Credibility is not a particularly strong suit of peer review in the evaluation of the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zg7666 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/research/noted-dutch-psychologist-stapel-accused-of-research-fraud.html?referrer= http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html?_r=1&referrer http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_is_stupid.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
percentient Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Remember; doubt surprising conclusions in science. They're probably wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted September 20, 2015 Author Share Posted September 20, 2015 Remember; doubt surprising conclusions in science. They're probably wrong. Indeed. It's just like movies. If it's hyped a lot before you get a chance to see or read it, it's probably not very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts