5 ms·
Elsevier may wish they had checked the revision a bit more carefully
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- metaphor 2y agoRelevant context[1] of the underlying meta. [1] https://technicaeditorial.com/cash-for-citations-the-newest-scam-in-scholarly-publishing/ https://technicaeditorial.com/cash-for-citations-the-newest-...
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThis particular form of citation farming by asking for citations in peer review (in exchange for a favorable review of the paper) is considered "acceptable" despite being scummy. Citation selling, which seems to be broadly equivalent, is very much not. This method is also a lot older and more widespread.
- gorjusborg 2y agoSo, am I reading this correctly? Researchers try to get paper published, but publisher asks for paper authors to add citations that weren't used in the research, presumably to increase citations of certain 'blessed' papers. Authors add the citations, but also a note that the citations were not used and were asked for by the publisher. If this is all correct, I'm curious what the publisher's relationship is to those cited papers. Were the citations paid for? Something else?
- tokai 2y agoNo not the publisher. The reviewers - other researchers.
- Ekaros 2y agoOn other hand the editor employed(or at least appointed) by Elsevier did pass on these...
- tokai 2y agoThats what makes it fun. Reviewer-coerced citations are almost ubiquitous - at least in the mildest forms. But it's rarely admitted like here. I bet many editors never reread papers, and just go by the reviewers word. Bet they were told that the paper is fine for publication with some added citations. The authors added them, editor and reviewers see the citations in the reference list and off it goes to be published.
- jsiepkes 2y agoLGTM!
- haccount 2y agoTrust the science! Is this peer reviewed? Lmao
- ellisv 2y agoThe publisher operates a peer-reviewed journal. The process is that the author(s) submit a paper to the journal which is briefly evaluated by an editor and then undergoes a review process. Journal editors maintain a list of reviewers comprised of past reviewers, authors, etc. For example, if you are publishing a paper on topic X then the editor will try to assign it to reviewers who are knowledgeable and specialized in topic X. Papers are usually reviewed by ~3 reviewers who can ask for revisions. Reviewers are typically anonymous to the authors, although the authors are usually not anonymous to the reviewers. If the reviewers ask for revisions (most common), the authors can revise the paper. This can go back and forth numerous times. Reviewers can be professors, PhD students, etc. and are paid by the journal for their time. There are many ways to manipulate the system. Reviewers can block or slow the publication of a rival, or they can suggest changes that benefit themselves (e.g. quid pro quo). Often this isn't so blatant and the line can be very blurry. The publisher and editor typically don't care much about the politics and conflicts of interest.
- tahoupt 2y agoReviewers don’t get paid (it’s only the Editor-in-chief, usually, who gets some salary).
- tamcap 2y ago> Reviewers can be professors, PhD students, etc. and are paid by the journal for their time. Most journals do not pay for reviewers time. There are some experiments that allow for this, but I would say 99% of the reviews out there are done... "out of the goodness of the reviewer's heart". There are indirect benefits to being a reviewer, such as early access to unpublished work, "goodwill" with the editor, etc.
- rcxdude 2y agoThis is often one of the more blatant ways the review process is de-anonymized. If a reviewer comes back saying you need to cite 3 papers all with the same author, they're probably that author, especially if they're only tenuously connected to the paper.
- ericyd 2y agoPersonally I dislike links that force me to do a bunch of work to figure out the gist of the post. In this case, it seems like a link to a link to a comment on an academic paper in which the author is frustrated about irrelevant citation requests? Maybe I misunderstood? I would love for submissions like this to include an explanatory snippet to provide context.
- HelloMcFly 2y agoIt appears a reviewer for the paper requested that their own works be added as citations to the paper for no justifiable reason beyond elevating their own citation count.
- alecco 2y ago> Clear beneficiary is Alex V. Trukhanov, publishing around 50 papers per year since 2018. Notice in particular how he has 17,528 citations in only 5,601 citing papers: more than 3 citations to him in each citing paper, on average. This is a clear indication of either a giant and seminal figure in their field, or citation manipulation. https://x.com/Dr_5GH/status/1855306578293068005 https://x.com/Dr_5GH/status/1855306578293068005 https://pubpeer.com/publications/1924F147DE045B97261004EB2387AE#2 https://pubpeer.com/publications/1924F147DE045B97261004EB238... Also note there's a Sergei V Trukhanov on most artificially cited papers, too.
- rpigab 2y agoGoodhart's law on citation count... Too easy to game. It seems many people do this, and it works for them, because even if their peers just know who is doing it, they're still making bank, see Didier Raoult's paper mill. See also: The Retraction Watch Leaderboard. Who has the most retractions? https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/ https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard...
- ska 2y agoAlmost nobody is “making bank”.
- jhbadger 2y agoNot in dollars, no, but a surprisingly large number of tenure decisions boil down to "does this researcher have a lot of citations to their work?" as a measure of the quality of their research.
- gklitz 2y agoVery true! And for the unfortunate ones who get tenture, well they miss out on making bank like the ones who leave academia for industry positions.
- whythre 2y agoFine, they are fighting like dogs over scraps. Is that a better idiom? Either way the system is broken.
- elashri 2y agoThe usual points - Elsevier is bad - Reviewers are not paid 99% of a time - Editors choose reviewers - Editors should be managing conflict and avoid that - Editors in chief is probably the only paid position in peer review process - Academic publishing industry have higher margin than Tech industry - Publishers don't have enough incentives to minimize number of publications for quality. - Again, Elsevier is evil
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThis sort of "citation for acceptance" trading happens everywhere. It's not just Elsevier.
- elashri 2y agoWhere did I point out that this is just elsevier?
- froh 2y agoany source for "everywhere" ? aka "science can't be trusted", hinting at "anywhere" ?
- pclmulqdq 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning Stop asking for sources to try to prove that someone is wrong. It proves nothing. Every time I have submitted a paper, I have dealt with this. Every scientist I know has dealt with this.
- froh 2y agoTIL "Sealioning" which it wasn't. we're discussing scientific culture. OP is pointing out a problem. and now you say always and everywhere which is a strong claim. happens sometimes, ok. happens a lot, okay. but "everywhere", "always"? also it would be genuinely interesting to get pointers on meta research, evidence based statements about the trustworthiness of X as in scientists, institutions, papers, publishers, ... I ask for that and you respond "Sealioning" shrug have a grand evening
- j3th9n 2y agoThis example is one of the entries into the rabbit hole called "science".