

Elsevier retracting 16 papers for faked peer review - tokenadult
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/19/elsevier-retracting-16-papers-faked-peer-review/

======
new299
"Sixteen papers are being retracted across three Elsevier journals after the
publisher discovered that one of the authors, Khalid Zaman, orchestrated fake
peer reviews by submitting false contact information for his suggested
reviewers."

As part of their value add, journals don't seek out additional referees. Don't
check that the contact information of suggested referees is correct. And no
paid editor checks the manuscript has plausibly passed review. It just gets
thrown through their automated system until they hit "accept with minor
revision" or reject.

This is of course in addition to the following non-services:

* Requiring the authors to perform all typesetting. * No copyediting * No paid referees

For which they charge in general several thousand USD for an open access
publication or extortionate subscription fees.

~~~
kjjw
Can only agree. Except they don't ask authors to do all typesetting and
copyediting. Some try to provide value there by outsourcing it all to
companies that make a complete mess of it. For an example see the recent IOP
publication of an abstract reading "Abstract goes here" and the recent Wiley
publication of citations reading "cite crappy paper here".

Actually a hands-off approach would be excusable if a) the technology systems
they provide weren't truly awful and b) they charged significantly less.

~~~
gmac
Yes. A recent paper I submitted (carefully typeset in LaTeX) got subjected to
all kinds of ludicrous mangling in the name of 'house style' by someone with
no apparent knowledge of English.

Things like 'for example' being replaced with 'e.g.' even at the end of a
sentence. Or citations beginning a sentence getting parenthesised — giving
"(Smith 2003) states that ...".

I re-corrected it all through gritted teeth, but I still haven't brought
myself to read what they finally published.

~~~
new299
Ouch, I've never heard to that happening that's insane. Care to name and shame
the journal?

------
tokenadult
The problem of fake peer review is becoming quite general. Besides the
particular case reported in the post opening this thread, another post from
Retraction Watch, "Are companies selling fake peer reviews to help papers get
published?"[1] reports that now "manuscript preparation services" included a
set of services that includes faking up the peer review of a finished
scientific paper. This is becoming pervasive enough that the Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE) is urging steps to make sure that publishers and
research-funding organizations coordinate efforts to avoid being tricked by
fake peer reviews.

[1] [http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/19/companies-selling-
fake...](http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/19/companies-selling-fake-peer-
reviews-help-papers-get-published/)

~~~
jcr
Academic fraud has existed as long as academia has existed. The specific
problem of peer review fraud certainly _seems_ to be growing, but it's also
possible that we're just becoming more aware of it. Though sites like
retractionwatch.com are not fantastic sources of news, it's good that they
exist since they do publicize the kind of news that tends to embarrass
academic publishers.

In the world of profit and prestige, the "publish or perish" rule tends to
make matters worse in numerous ways. Pressuring people to get published in
prestigious journals, along with all of the associated profit motives and
rewards, makes the entire system fragile and a vulnerable target for abuse.

The entire situation reminds me of the infamous American bank robber, Willie
Sutton, who supposedly said that he robbed banks because that's where the
money is [1,2].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton%27s_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton%27s_law)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Sutton#Urban_legend](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Sutton#Urban_legend)

------
swayvil
Those haunted eyes!

