Difference between revisions of "Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A publisher just retracted ten papers whose peer review was “engineered” — despite knowing about the problem of fake reviews for y...") |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=A publisher just retracted ten papers whose peer review was “engineered” — despite knowing about the problem of fake reviews for years | |Title=A publisher just retracted ten papers whose peer review was “engineered” — despite knowing about the problem of fake reviews for years | ||
| − | |Is About=. | + | |Is About=This case is about a publisher, SAGE, who retracted 10 papers published as part of two special collections in ''Advances in Mechanical Engineering'' after discovering the peer review process that had been managed by the guest editors did not meet the journal’s usual rigorous standards<ref>https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/12/publisher-has-known-of-problem-of-fake-reviews-for-years-so-how-did-10-papers-slip-its-notice/</ref>. |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | |
| + | |||
| + | This is a factual case. | ||
| + | |Important Because=It is important to keep in mijn that reviewers can also commit scientific fraud. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Website Blog (Retractionwatch) | ||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 13: | Line 19: | ||
|Has Timepoint=12-7-2018 | |Has Timepoint=12-7-2018 | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty | |Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty | ||
| − | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer reviewing | + | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer reviewing; Self peer review |
|Related To Research Area=Mechanical engineering | |Related To Research Area=Mechanical engineering | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 11:55, 18 May 2020
ResourcesCases
A publisher just retracted ten papers whose peer review was “engineered” — despite knowing about the problem of fake reviews for years
What is this about?
This case is about a publisher, SAGE, who retracted 10 papers published as part of two special collections in Advances in Mechanical Engineering after discovering the peer review process that had been managed by the guest editors did not meet the journal’s usual rigorous standards[1].
Why is this important?
It is important to keep in mijn that reviewers can also commit scientific fraud.
