Difference between revisions of "Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Engineered Peer Reviews Lead to 10 Retractions | |Title=Engineered Peer Reviews Lead to 10 Retractions | ||
| − | |Is About= | + | |Is About=SAGE retracted 10 papers published as part of two special collections in ''Advances in Mechanical Engineering.'' The publisher's decision resulted from the discovery that the peer review process did not meet the journal’s usual rigorous standards<ref>McCook, A. "A publisher just retracted ten papers whose peer review was ‘engineered’." ''Retraction Watch.(Downloaded on 26 September 2018 from <nowiki>https://retractionwatch</nowiki>. com/2018/07/page/3/)'' (2018).</ref>. This is a factual case. |
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| − | |Important Because= | + | |Important Because=Reviewers and guest editors can also commit research misconduct. |
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 14:16, 19 June 2020
ResourcesCases
Engineered Peer Reviews Lead to 10 Retractions
What is this about?
SAGE retracted 10 papers published as part of two special collections in Advances in Mechanical Engineering. The publisher's decision resulted from the discovery that the peer review process did not meet the journal’s usual rigorous standards[1]. This is a factual case.
- ↑ McCook, A. "A publisher just retracted ten papers whose peer review was ‘engineered’." Retraction Watch.(Downloaded on 26 September 2018 from https://retractionwatch. com/2018/07/page/3/) (2018).
Why is this important?
Reviewers and guest editors can also commit research misconduct.
