3 ms·
It's important to note that this is about fake reviews; not necessarily "fake research". There is an important difference. Fake research (eg. people fabricating
by jakobegger 10y ago
It's important to note that this is about fake reviews; not necessarily "fake research". There is an important difference. Fake research (eg. people fabricating measurements) often passes real peer review and is a different problem.
The authors committing review fraud probably are not trying to publish fabricated research; it's more likely they were attempting to make it more likely that their research is published.
Most articles are not rejected by reviewers because the research is "wrong"; rather because they are not significant enough, or other papers are better.
- adolph 10y agoWhere there is a whiff of smoke we often look for fire, no? Without a deep dive into a statistically significant amount of the research how could you say that those papers were probably not fabricated? It seems that part of the publishing apparatus discovered this flaw as the journal was undergoing a shift in publication models. In that all parties have an interest in the ongoing viability and prestige of the journal, and most often institutions respond to scandals by either coverup or diminishment, who benefits from the news and which party wants to contain the scandal to the review process only?
- pizza_boy 10y agoThere may be an intersection between fabricated research and fraudulently reviewed research but I understand that at least some of the papers retracted for reviewer fraud could have been published legitimately. Grandparent has it right. This is all about the pressure on authors to publish, and publish quickly.