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...") |
m (Text replacement - "staging.embassy.science" to "embassy.science") |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=A publisher just retracted ten papers whose peer review was | + | |Title=Dubious Peer Reviews Lead to 10 Retractions |
| − | + | |Is About=In 2018 SAGE retracted 10 papers which had been published in ''Advances in Mechanical Engineering.'' The journal states the peer review process was flawed. Once the papers were scrutinized by new reviewers the articles tecnical errors in the data was discovered.<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1687814018783797</ref> The published papers were of unsatisfactory quality and were eventually, retracted. However, [https://retractionwatch.com/ Retraction Watch] speculated the reason for [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0 retraction] being the discovery of the peer review of all 10 papers being fake.<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> | |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | <references /> |
| − | |Important For=Researchers | + | |Important Because=Peer review is an important process to detect the flaws of to-be-published papers. This step of the publication process needs to be performed in order to increase the quality of scientific papers. When peer review is 'sloppy', or even allegedely fake, the quality will likely be low, and erroneous papers can be published. |
| + | |||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | |Important For=Researchers; Peer reviewers; Editors | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
|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 Resource=Resource:E083cc57-7e32-4e00-b688-8928e8becfa9;Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90;Resource:1b777e40-9d7f-4ef4-a601-6be70c9e386a | ||
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0;Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c;Theme:3a32df5c-e6e8-45f9-8132-434db3985a65;Theme:9025f215-cc6a-4b00-894b-68b9a089f173 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |Has Timepoint= | + | |Involves=Retraction Watch; Sage; Advances in Mechanical Engineering |
| + | |Has Timepoint=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=PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering; PE 08.08 - Mechanical and manufacturing engineering (shaping, mounting, joining, separation) |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:24, 27 October 2020
ResourcesCases
Dubious Peer Reviews Lead to 10 Retractions
What is this about?
In 2018 SAGE retracted 10 papers which had been published in Advances in Mechanical Engineering. The journal states the peer review process was flawed. Once the papers were scrutinized by new reviewers the articles tecnical errors in the data was discovered.[1] The published papers were of unsatisfactory quality and were eventually, retracted. However, Retraction Watch speculated the reason for retraction being the discovery of the peer review of all 10 papers being fake.[2]
- ↑ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1687814018783797
- ↑ 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?
Peer review is an important process to detect the flaws of to-be-published papers. This step of the publication process needs to be performed in order to increase the quality of scientific papers. When peer review is 'sloppy', or even allegedely fake, the quality will likely be low, and erroneous papers can be published.
