3 ms·

So, 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 researc

So, 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 ago
No not the publisher. The reviewers - other researchers.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  On other hand the editor employed(or at least appointed) by Elsevier did pass on these...
  - tokai 2y ago
    Thats 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 ago
      LGTM!
- haccount 2y ago
  Trust the science! Is this peer reviewed? Lmao
ellisv 2y ago
The 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 ago
  Reviewers 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 ago
  This 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.

tokai 2y ago

No not the publisher. The reviewers - other researchers.

Ekaros 2y ago
On other hand the editor employed(or at least appointed) by Elsevier did pass on these...
- tokai 2y ago
  Thats 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 ago
    LGTM!
haccount 2y ago
Trust the science! Is this peer reviewed? Lmao

ellisv 2y ago

The 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 ago
Reviewers 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 ago
This 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.