4 ms·

Can you elaborate? Thanks.

• leemailll 7y ago
  plos one is one of the journals that most people treated as none significant one in the field, and institutions in China effective ban researchers publish papers on it (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07025-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07025-5). And the retractions from this journal is increasing (https://mobile.twitter.com/retractionwatch/status/1212396706870026241 https://mobile.twitter.com/retractionwatch/status/1212396706...). The reputation is so bad that wikipedia includes a sentence in the entry as "In 2016, Jeffrey Beall described PLOS One as a scientific spammer. Owing to concerns about the peer review process at the time, he considered the journal more as a digital repository than a scholarly publication.[41]" A recent event resonates with this which is described as "CreatorGate" on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLOS_One#CreatorGate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLOS_One#CreatorGate), which even in the abstract of the paper, as quoted from retractionwatch (https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/03/plos-one-retracting-paper-that-cites-the-creator/ https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/03/plos-one-retracting-p...), "The paper, about the biomechanics of hands, gives a shout out to “the Creator” as early as the abstract, which contains this sentence: 'The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.'" If this can be slipped by review process, any thing can happen. I still yet to met any senior scientist who is proud to say in public whose group published on plos one.
  • rocha 7y ago
    Thank you