|
- Exclusive: retraction-prone editors identified at megajournal
Exclusive: retraction-prone editors identified at megajournal PLoS ONE Study says small editor group handled many problematic manuscripts — and a Nature investigation finds out who they are
- Retraction-Prone Editors Identified at Megajournal PLoS ONE
Nearly one-third of all retracted papers at PLoS ONE can be traced back to just 45 researchers who served as editors at the journal, an analysis of its publication records has found Nature: The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), found that 45 editors handled
- DAILY DOSE: Scientific fraud has become an industry . . .
(Science) Retraction‑prone editors identified at megajournal PLoS ONE A new investigation identifies a small cohort of editors at PLoS ONE who handled a disproportionate number of manuscripts later retracted for problems These editors repeatedly oversaw papers with significant flaws—many linked to paper mills or fraud
- Scientific fraud has become an ‘industry,’ alarming analysis . . .
They began their analysis by pinpointing corrupt editors They focused their investigation on PLOS ONE, because the megajournal allows easy access to bulk metadata and publishes the names of the editors who have handled the thousands of papers it publishes each year, making it possible to detect anomalies without behind-the-scenes information
- Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and . . .
Here we address this knowledge gap by performing an in-depth analysis of the largest journal in the world, PLOS ONE, over its first 10-years of publishing (2006–2015) Not surprisingly, this journal also has the largest distributed editorial board of any megajournal
- Paper mills driving exponential growth in fraudulent research . . .
The team’s analysis of articles published by Plos One – a peer-reviewed open-access mega-journal that discloses the handling editor – identified 45 editors who accepted articles that were more likely to be retracted or receive post-publication comments on PubPeer than chance would predict
- Retraction: A hybrid PSO-FFNN approach for optimized seismic . . .
The PLOS One Editors retract this article [1] because it was identified as one of a series of submissions for which we have concerns about potential manipulation of the publication process These concerns call into question the validity and provenance of the reported results
|
|
|