Re: Latest on retraction of Chines papers
Barrett, Kim
Distinguished Professor of Medicine
UC San Diego
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology
Sent from Surface
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:44 PM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Just to correct the record here because it might be a wee bit awkward for our OSI colleague Dr. Oransky, MD, to do this himself, Ivan is both a journalist and a scientist (in addition to being a journal founder and editor, professor, association leader, TED speaker, etc.---your typical OSI resume J). I suppose some people might quibble about whether MDs are scientists or practitioners---the same goes for some types of professors---but to me anyway that’s really splitting hairs. Sorry---carry on.
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:06 AM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Latest on retraction of Chines papers
Sort of, Rick. F1000 provides a starter list of reviewers, which I used at first and Ivan was on it. I had never heard of him. He is actually a journalist, not a scientist.
Both reviewers failed to address my actual findings, which were a taxonomy of funding-induced biases and the prospect for a cascade among these.
So I rejected the review, in some detail. The penalty for this is not being indexed, but still published, which is interesting in its own right. One can read my submitted article, and the negative reviews, and my response, rather than seeing nothing at all
due to reviewer rejection. I like this model because it actually displays a discussion. But if one thinks that a reviewer's job is to stop things from being published then this model fails to do that.
David
Inside Public Access
At 01:46 PM 4/27/2017, Rick Anderson wrote:
David, I checked out
the article you published in F1000 and found your exchange with the reviewers very interesting. Was Ivan Oransky one of the reviewers you proposed?
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
rick.a...@utah.edu
From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of "Bev.A...@f1000.com" <Bev.A...@f1000.com>
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:39 AM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>, "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Latest on retraction of Chines papers
I wouldn’t want to answer for Laurie, but I think the process of having authors suggest reviewers only becomes problematic if the reviewers suggested are not checked to make sure they are appropriate – we have a manual checking process. An author may need to come up with more suggestions if the previously suggested reviewers decline which is perhaps why you had to go around the process a few times.
Bev
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [ mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: 27 April 2017 15:09
Subject: Re: Latest on retraction of Chines papers
Sorry Bev. It was several years ago so maybe it was 5 not 10. The point is that we went around and around with F1000 requirements that I keep coming up with new lists of recommended reviewers. Of course you check them, in fact you rejected some. I can look up the entire correspondence if we need it.
Laurie's claim is that this should not be done at all, 5 or 10 at a time. How does F1000 respond? I personally like the idea.
David
On Apr 27, 2017, at 9:27 AM, <Bev.A...@f1000.com> wrote:
David, I’m not sure how far back you submitted your paper to us, but we only ask for half that number of referee suggestions, so I’m not sure how you came to submit “ten at a time†We also manually check the suggestions to make sure they are appropriate. Bev
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [ mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: 27 April 2017 13:14
Subject: Re: Latest on retraction of Chines papers
Laurie,
F1000 actually requires that authors nominate reviewers, ten at a time. I submitted an article awhile back and had to go through three rounds of reviewer submissions before they would post my article. It was hard work.
I take it you think this is a bad practice, but it is very hard for an editor to know who the real experts are for any given article. As Jie notes, the number of retractions is very small, as a percentage of publications. So I wonder if banning author nominations is a good idea. The benefit is getting knowledgable reviewers.
David
Inside Public Access
On Apr 26, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Laurie Goodman < lau...@gigasciencejournal.com> wrote:
Jie,
You are spot on about the journals not being rigorous enough. When we spoke with the folks at Xinhun, they asked about what we did to reduce the chance of using a 'fak' reviewer. We stated categorically that we do a very careful assessment of the reviewers we use. We also do not include a place for suggesting reviewers in our online submission system.
Every single journal we have seen needing to retract papers have had editors who are not full time editors, and who are likely to be relieved to not have to seek out a potential reviewer. Worse, if the journal has a system where they input names of reviewers they have used- it can then spread to other journals using that same system.
'Lazy' (Okay- non-rigorous) editors is a big problem that helps further this practice. Publishers can remove the 'suggest a reviewer' option to also reduce the possibility.
Working with BGI, and them working with MDs for research projects, has really shown me what a terrible position this puts MDs in- as you say, they already have enough to do! I think, because of this, some very busy doctors seek out help from companies that say they are writing and editing companies (which they will of course go to since they are non-native English speakers), and then these companies let them know that they can help at more intense levels by writing the paper for the doctor and submitting it etc- and getting it published. So, many of these busy people don't actually realize that these companies are committing fraud- in their name.
We have done some 'tests' on companies in HK to see how far they are willing to take us in the publishing process, and once we start to push for helping write and submit, etc. we get referred to another company -but the email signatures are the same as the original company. It is quite difficult.
This system of:
(1) Pushing jIF (or number of publications) as the main (or only) mechanism for determining promotions and funding
(2) pressed-for-time individuals who have the extra difficult problem of being a non-native English speaker, but who MUST publish
(3) unethical companies that present themselves as editing companies- but actually promote their successes (and thus gain more clients) by doing fraudulent things.
(4) all capped off by non-rigorous editors who make it all of this easier for these papers to get past the "gate"
(5) and so many other smaller practices that play into this as well.
make this difficult, and definitely not a straightforward thing to tackle... (I doubt it could ever be completely eliminated)
Also- while reviewer fraud is highly discussed in the news right now (primarily because of the blast of high number in retracted papers at once)- there are so many other types of scientific misconduct...
'
Openness on all sides helps with all of this.
-L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurie Goodman, PhD
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9724-5976
GigaScience, Editor-in-Chief
Co-Publishers: BGI and Oxford University Press
BGI-Hong Kong Ltd. 16 Dai Fu Street, Tai Po Industrial Estate, NT, Hong Kong. China
Tel: 852 3610 3531 (GMT +8)
Main Email: edit...@gigasciencejournal.com
Website: http://www.gigasciencejournal.com
Follow us on Twitter @GigaScience; Find us at FaceBook; Read Giga Blog
Sign up for Article Alerts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:07 AM, x...@whu.edu.cn <x...@whu.edu.cn> wrote:
Hi Laurie and Jo,
Thanks for bringing it up.
As a Chinese researcher and an academic author, I have noticed the big retraction as well, sorry to let you know but I happen to know one of the authors. Meanwhile about the trust and misconduct in scholarly communication, I am doing a research together with CIBER now, so I would like to share my thought here with you.
First and foremost, it is a serious misconduct. Every player in this table should follow academic rules. Cheating is wrong.
From the general perspective, China scientific output ranks No.2 in the world. The 107 papers that are only a tiny proportion in the whole output cannot represent the whole rising society. The dominant majority of Chinese scientific research papers follow the strict and formal academic paradigms in writing and publishing process.
Also, speaking of the reasons, there are 524 Chinese clinical medicine practitioners whose papers were withdrew involving this incident. For those researchers, the inner motivation is getting promoted. China’s academic evaluating system for medical employees (and all researchers) requires annual output in SCI/SSCI which takes up great in the whole. The more one publishes in SCI/SSCI, the bigger chance for him/her being promoted. To be honest, it is a rigid system though which costs much time and effert to change it and we are working on it. The fact is that it lacks of medical personnel resources in China while there are so many patients every day. The doctors are all very busy with patients and they don’t have time to write academic papers. This is an objective fact rather than an excuse for cheating. I personally think that the evaluation system which requires them to publish papers is ridiculous.
Despite these individual matters, the publisher is the final guard for journal publishing. Publisher should take their responsibilities to filter content for the society. As a “Gate Keeper†the publisher is expected to to complete internal control mechanism for a better administration on journals.
It is best for everyone to see that they refuse those cheating papers before publishing. At the meantime, the predatory journals that collude with some third-party organizations should be noticed. It is those journals that provide green path for academic misbehavior.
In the end, resisting and rejecting academic misbehavior is a global mission. All the researchers and publishers should join together to protect integrity of scientific research and international journals.
Jie
Jie Xu, PhD, Associate Professor
School of Information Management
Wuhan University, China
Tel. +86 68755187
From: Jo De
Date: 2017-04-25 02:02
To: Laurie Goodman
CC: The Open Scholarship Initiative; osi2017
Subject: Re: Latest on retraction of Chines papers
I agree with you Laurie, and kudos to Retractionwatch as well.
Joann
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Laurie Goodman < lau...@gigasciencejournal.com> wrote:
You may have already seen this:
http://retractionwatch.com/201 7/04/20/new-record-major-publisher-retracting-100-studies-cancer-journal-fake-peer-reviews/
Springer has retracted 107 papers from China, from one journal (Tumor Biology) for using fake reviewers... This is the largest retraction ever.
It's hitting hard now in China as this continues to go on as the official news outlet Xinhu in China is interviewing staff from GigaScience about our thoughts on this, and how we handle peer review, etc. It will be interesting to see what comes out of that.
Two things:
1. China HAS to stop giving huge piles of money to authors who get into journals with particular impact factors. This, however, is so embedded as providing both professional respect as well as money, I'm not sure how long it would take, even if the government did stop giving monetary rewards...
2. Open peer review... people can see what the comments are - and who signed the review. This one, too, is embedded in our culture of fear of reprisal... which would also be less likely to happen with- open peer review.
-L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurie Goodman, PhD
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9724-5976
GigaScience, Editor-in-Chief
Co-Publishers: BGI and Oxford University Press
BGI-Hong Kong Ltd. 16 Dai Fu Street, Tai Po Industrial Estate, NT, Hong Kong. China
Tel: 852 3610 3531 (GMT +8)
Main Email: edit...@gigasciencejournal.com
Website: http://www.gigasciencejournal .com
Follow us on Twitter @GigaScience; Find us at FaceBook; Read Giga Blog
Sign up for Article Alerts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi- listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Faculty of 1000 and F1000 are trading names of Faculty of 1000 Limited. This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. Faculty of 1000 Limited does not accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Faculty of 1000 Limited. No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Faculty of 1000 Limited by means of e-mail communication. Faculty of 1000 Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 3739756 Registered Office Middlesex House, 34-42 Cleveland Street, London W1T 4LB
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Faculty of 1000 and F1000 are trading names of Faculty of 1000 Limited. This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. Faculty of 1000 Limited does not accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Faculty of 1000 Limited. No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Faculty of 1000 Limited by means of e-mail communication. Faculty of 1000 Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 3739756 Registered Office Middlesex House, 34-42 Cleveland Street, London W1T 4LB
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.