Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

A new standard of peer review is needed, page-13

First 13 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
betterman

3,017 Posts.

15/09/17

08:07

Post #: 27234738
Share

Originally posted by birdman29 ↑

Fake Peer Review Leads to Massive Retractions

Apr 28, 2017

The cancer journal, Tumor Biology, has uncovered 107 papers that had undergone a fake peer review process and retracted all of them. This retraction is the largest yet by a single journal and affects more than 500 authors, largely Chinese clinicians. Fake peer review is an example of scientific misconduct and exploits the fact that editors often need help finding reviewers. When an editor requests that an author suggest reviewers for their manuscript, the author would suggest someone whom they know will give a favorable review, such as a colleague or a graduate student they supervise. Alternatively, the author might suggest actual experts in the field but supply a fake email address that they control. The invitation to review the article goes to this email address, allowing them to review their own paper in the name of a scientific expert. The glowing review is submitted to the journal and the editor thinks that the person who conducted the peer review is none the wiser. Up until the end of 2016, Springer published Tumor Biology but as of January 2017, SAGE is the new publisher.

All of it:

https://www.enago.com/academy/fake-peer-review-leads-to-massive-retractions/

Just have a look at this list...

https://www.google.com.au/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU746AU746&q= Peer review scandals&oq= Peer review scandals&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0.47503.70501.0.73584.16.16.0.0.0.0.236.3056.2-14.14.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.14.3048...0i10k1j0i7i30k1j0i67k1j0i7i10i30k1j0i30k1j0i13i30k1j0i13i5i30k1j0i8i13i30k1.sVSMBAuCwbA

View attachment 729879

Expand

My Grandfather was a Peer
He had bladder trouble.
2 Upvote

Reply