From the Washington Post:
Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal.
Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.
The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.
You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”
…
After a 14-month investigation, JVC determined the ring involved “aliases” and fake e-mail addresses of reviewers — up to 130 of them — in an apparently successful effort to get friendly reviews of submissions and as many articles published as possible by Chen and his friends. “On at least one occasion, the author Peter Chen reviewed his own paper under one of the aliases he created,” according to the SAGE announcement.
The statement does not explain how something like this happens. Did the ring invent names and say they were scholars? Did they use real names and pretend to be other scholars? Doesn’t anyone check on these things by, say, picking up the phone and calling the reviewer?
More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/
=======================================================
More also at retraction watch, the source of the WaPo story:
SAGE Publications busts “peer review and citation ring,” 60 papers retracted
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Village Idiot,
Once again I complement you on your appropriate screen name. You say:
Some abuse peer review (allegedly), therefore peer-reviewed global warming papers are worthless, therefore there is no AGW.
Very few skeptics would take the position that ‘there is no AGW’. That would assume proving a negative. As I have stated many times: AGW may well exist. But if it does, it is too minuscule to measure, since there are no testable, verifiable measurements of AGW.
That is different from the alarmist crowd, which treats AGW as fact, when it is no more than a conjecture. That is the ‘fallacy of logic’ of the alarmist cult.
Finally, the abuse of climate peer review is richly deserved, as the Climategate emails make clear. The climate peer review process has been thoroughly corrupted. We can have that discussion if you like, but I suspect that despite being an idiot, you will wisely decline. There is overwhelming evidence of corruption available. Climate peer review is suspect from the get-go, which is why many of us demand that empirical evidence and raw data must be the gold standard. That standard thoroughly debunks the alarmist position, which relies on untestable, unmeasurable assertions.
I wonder if any of the papers actually had merit.
Anyone who’s read Retraction Watch for a while (and I encourage everyone to do so) knows that peer-review, which is necessary in theory, is broken in practice. Too much money’s involved for the system not to be corrupted. Rent-seekers and craven charlatans have existed always, but once the process discouraged them. Then it looked the other way. Now it’s enabling them.
hearty. Being tough has nothing to do with it.
Tom O says:
July 10, 2014 at 1:44 pm
…
followed by a hardy “I recommend this for publication.”
hearty. Being tough has nothing to do with it.
(Sorry, blew the tags. )
Vincent Nunes says:
July 10, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Once again, this isn’t “peer review”; it’s “PAL review”.
Actually, according to the news, here we are even talking about some cases of SELF-review.
Where fame, money, and power are at stake, instituttional corruption always follows. There is no reason to believe science is an exception. There is every reason to believe it is not.
The only peer-review that should have any credibility is when the editors independently select the reviewers. Sure, doesn’t address the issue of publisher complicity, but that the submitting author’s can provide the reviews on their own is absurd…
You have remarked very interesting details! P.s. Nice web site =)