Difference between revisions of "Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee"
From The Embassy of Good Science
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/12/publisher-has-known-of-problem-of-fake-reviews-for-years-so-how-did-10-papers-slip-its-notice/ | |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/12/publisher-has-known-of-problem-of-fake-reviews-for-years-so-how-did-10-papers-slip-its-notice/ | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Involves=Retraction Watch; Sage; Advances in Mechanical Engineering | |Involves=Retraction Watch; Sage; Advances in Mechanical Engineering | ||
Revision as of 13:50, 20 May 2020
ResourcesCases
Engineered peer reviews lead to 10 retractions
What is this about?
This case which was made public by Retraction Watch 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]. This is a factual case.
Why is this important?
It is important to keep in mind that reviewers can also commit scientific fraud.
