Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Cochran-Stafira, D. Liane]

Oxford University Press is non-profit


*
Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biology
Saint Xavier University
Department of Biological Sciences
3700 West 103rd Street
Chicago, IL  60655

Ph:773-298-3514
Fax:  773-298-3536
coch...@sxu.edu
http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Sheila Ward
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:56 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

Is there a list anywhere of the journals with not-for-profit publishers?

Sheila Ward

On 2015-03-30 16:06, Ganter, Philip wrote:
> If the model of scientific publishing is the for-profit publisher 
> hiding publicly funded research behind a pay wall and making a profit, 
> then I think most would agree with Atanu: reviewers should be paid.
> 
> If the model is the older model of professional societies and 
> individual scientists (or small groups of scientists) publishing as a 
> service to their field (so well described by Malcolm in an earlier 
> posting) then most would disagree with Atanu as there is no money for 
> paying reviewers and we all benefit from their work.
> 
> There was a time when the latter model was more common or, at least, 
> was seen by most scientists as more common.  This perception produced 
> the comment about free-riding, Atanu, not animosity towards you 
> personally.
> 
> Unless we stop publishing in for-profit journals (is Wiley or Reed 
> Elselvier any less predatory than Jacobs?), we risk motives other than 
> the communication of quality scientific work taking command of science 
> publishing.  Profit is a great motivator, as free market exponents 
> continually remind us.  So great, in fact, that other motives are 
> over-ridden when push comes to shove.  Removing profit should be a 
> priority and funding agencies should lead the way by requiring 
> sufficient publishing funds be included in proposal budgets as well as 
> requiring those receiving their funds to only publish in open-access 
> journals.
> Science be damned (the journal, that is).
> 
> If this were the case, Geoffrey’s assertion that those who want to 
> publish must also agree to review would have more weight.  As it is, 
> many (seemingly including Atanu) choose not to make money for the 
> shareholders of large publishing houses.
> 
> Phil Ganter
> Biological Sciences
> Tennessee State University
> 
> 
> On 3/30/15, 1:57 PM, "Atanu Mukherjee"  wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me.
>> 
>> "The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of 
>> good reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then?
>> 
>> "Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in 
>> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did 
>> you mean by "differentially compensated", exactly?
>> 
>> "Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also 
>> need reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case 
>> then why did the thread started otherwise?
>> 
>> "If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers 
>> that you submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the 
>> peer review system and that behavior is not professional at all." - 
>> Not relevant at all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current 
>> flaw-filled peer reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act 
>> like a professional by paying a good salary to the reviewers and see 
>> the change you want.
>> Period.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey < 
>> geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> The economics are really rather different.
>>> 
>>> Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in 
>>> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated.
>>> 
>>> Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also 
>>> need reviewers to get their papers published.
>>> 
>>> If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers 
>>> that you submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the 
>>> peer review system and that behavior is not professional at all.
>>> 
>>>  +/*\+ 
>>> Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
>>> Professor, Natural Resource Management Co-Director, Geospatial 
>>> Sciences Center of Excellen

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Suzanne Pilaar Birch]

en?
>>>>
>>>> "Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
>>>> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did
>>>> you
>>>> mean by "differentially compensated", exactly?
>>>>
>>>> "Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
>>>> reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then
>>>> why
>>>> did the thread started otherwise?
>>>>
>>>> "If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that
>>>> you
>>>> submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
>>>> system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not relevant at
>>>> all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current flaw-filled peer
>>>> reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act like a professional
>>>> by
>>>> paying a good salary to the reviewers and see the change you want.
>>>> Period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey <
>>>> geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  The economics are really rather different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
>>>>> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
>>>>> reviewers to get their papers published.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that
>>>>> you
>>>>> submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
>>>>> system and that behavior is not professional at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>  +/*\+ 
>>>>> Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
>>>>> Professor, Natural Resource Management
>>>>> Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE)
>>>>> South Dakota State University
>>>>> 1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B
>>>>> Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA
>>>>> voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX)
>>>>> email: geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu
>>>>> http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:
>>>>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee
>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM
>>>>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of
>>>>> papers
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end
>>>>> they
>>>>> don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals charge
>>>>> for a
>>>>> paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of money to the
>>>>> authors
>>>>> for publishing but the people who perform the major role behind the
>>>>> journals' success get unpaid. Sorry, either you pay the reviewers
>>>>> (nobody
>>>>> is interested in your subscription waiver or something like that) a
>>>>> standard money or you keep seeing the trend: "so many people decline to
>>>>> do
>>>>> reviews these days". When you're doing business, be professional.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Stefano Liccioli
>>>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Good morning,
>>>>> > in regards to the reviewing issue and the fact that "so many people
>>>>> > decline to do reviews these days",I was wondering how many of the
>>>>> > Ecologgers (at least, those of you who are reviewers) are registered
>>>>> > on Poblons https://publons.com/ I was recently invited to do so and
>>>>> I
>>>>> > haven't done yet (perhaps waiting to hear on it from colleagues) -
>>>>> but
>>>>> > maybe it could help to actually get a credit for the revie

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Sheila Ward]

Is there a list anywhere of the journals with not-for-profit publishers?

Sheila Ward

On 2015-03-30 16:06, Ganter, Philip wrote:
If the model of scientific publishing is the for-profit publisher 
hiding

publicly funded research behind a pay wall and making a profit, then I
think most would agree with Atanu: reviewers should be paid.

If the model is the older model of professional societies and 
individual

scientists (or small groups of scientists) publishing as a service to
their field (so well described by Malcolm in an earlier posting) then 
most
would disagree with Atanu as there is no money for paying reviewers and 
we

all benefit from their work.

There was a time when the latter model was more common or, at least, 
was

seen by most scientists as more common.  This perception produced the
comment about free-riding, Atanu, not animosity towards you personally.

Unless we stop publishing in for-profit journals (is Wiley or Reed
Elselvier any less predatory than Jacobs?), we risk motives other than 
the

communication of quality scientific work taking command of science
publishing.  Profit is a great motivator, as free market exponents
continually remind us.  So great, in fact, that other motives are
over-ridden when push comes to shove.  Removing profit should be a
priority and funding agencies should lead the way by requiring 
sufficient

publishing funds be included in proposal budgets as well as requiring
those receiving their funds to only publish in open-access journals.
Science be damned (the journal, that is).

If this were the case, Geoffrey’s assertion that those who want to 
publish

must also agree to review would have more weight.  As it is, many
(seemingly including Atanu) choose not to make money for the 
shareholders

of large publishing houses.

Phil Ganter
Biological Sciences
Tennessee State University


On 3/30/15, 1:57 PM, "Atanu Mukherjee"  wrote:


Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me.

"The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of 
good

reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then?

"Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did 
you

mean by "differentially compensated", exactly?

"Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also 
need
reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then 
why

did the thread started otherwise?

"If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that 
you

submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not relevant 
at

all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current flaw-filled peer
reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act like a 
professional

by
paying a good salary to the reviewers and see the change you want. 
Period.




On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey <
geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu> wrote:


The economics are really rather different.

Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
chronically short supply and is differentially compensated.

Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also 
need

reviewers to get their papers published.

If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that
you
submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
system and that behavior is not professional at all.

 +/*\+ 
Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
Professor, Natural Resource Management
Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE)
South Dakota State University
1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B
Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA
voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX)
email: geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu
http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m



-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:
ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of 
papers


Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end
they
don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals charge
for a
paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of money to the
authors
for publishing but the people who perform the major role behind the
journals' success get unpaid. Sorry, either you pay the reviewers
(nobody
is interested in your subscription waiver or something like that) a
standard money or you keep seeing the trend: "so many people decline 
to

do
reviews these days". When you're doing business, be professional.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Stefano Liccioli

wrote:

> Good morning,
> in regards to the reviewin

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Stephen L. Young]

iant.pdf
>
>Change is coming to an institution near you
>
> +/*\+ 
>Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
>Professor, Natural Resource Management
>Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE)
>South Dakota State University
>1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B
>Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA
>voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX)
>email: geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu
>http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
>[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Ganter, Philip
>Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:07 PM
>To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
>
>If the model of scientific publishing is the for-profit publisher hiding
>publicly funded research behind a pay wall and making a profit, then I
>think most would agree with Atanu: reviewers should be paid.
>
>If the model is the older model of professional societies and individual
>scientists (or small groups of scientists) publishing as a service to
>their field (so well described by Malcolm in an earlier posting) then
>most would disagree with Atanu as there is no money for paying reviewers
>and we all benefit from their work.
>
>There was a time when the latter model was more common or, at least, was
>seen by most scientists as more common.  This perception produced the
>comment about free-riding, Atanu, not animosity towards you personally.
>
>Unless we stop publishing in for-profit journals (is Wiley or Reed
>Elselvier any less predatory than Jacobs?), we risk motives other than
>the communication of quality scientific work taking command of science
>publishing.  Profit is a great motivator, as free market exponents
>continually remind us.  So great, in fact, that other motives are
>over-ridden when push comes to shove.  Removing profit should be a
>priority and funding agencies should lead the way by requiring sufficient
>publishing funds be included in proposal budgets as well as requiring
>those receiving their funds to only publish in open-access journals.
>Science be damned (the journal, that is).
>
>If this were the case, Geoffrey’s assertion that those who want to
>publish must also agree to review would have more weight.  As it is, many
>(seemingly including Atanu) choose not to make money for the shareholders
>of large publishing houses.
>
>Phil Ganter
>Biological Sciences
>Tennessee State University
>
>
>On 3/30/15, 1:57 PM, "Atanu Mukherjee"  wrote:
>
>>Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me.
>>
>>"The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of
>>good reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then?
>>
>>"Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
>>chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did
>>you mean by "differentially compensated", exactly?
>>
>>"Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
>>reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then
>>why did the thread started otherwise?
>>
>>"If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that
>>you submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer
>>review system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not
>>relevant at all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current
>>flaw-filled peer reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act
>>like a professional by paying a good salary to the reviewers and see
>>the change you want. Period.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey <
>>geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> The economics are really rather different.
>>>
>>> Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
>>> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated.
>>>
>>> Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also
>>> need reviewers to get their papers published.
>>>
>>> If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that
>>>you  submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer
>>>review  system and that behavior is not professional at all.
>>>
>>>  +/*\+ 
>>> Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
>>> Professor, Natural Resource Management Co-Director, Geospatial
>>> Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE) South Dakota State University
&

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Henebry, Geoffrey]

ject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

If the model of scientific publishing is the for-profit publisher hiding 
publicly funded research behind a pay wall and making a profit, then I think 
most would agree with Atanu: reviewers should be paid.

If the model is the older model of professional societies and individual 
scientists (or small groups of scientists) publishing as a service to their 
field (so well described by Malcolm in an earlier posting) then most would 
disagree with Atanu as there is no money for paying reviewers and we all 
benefit from their work.

There was a time when the latter model was more common or, at least, was seen 
by most scientists as more common.  This perception produced the comment about 
free-riding, Atanu, not animosity towards you personally.

Unless we stop publishing in for-profit journals (is Wiley or Reed Elselvier 
any less predatory than Jacobs?), we risk motives other than the communication 
of quality scientific work taking command of science publishing.  Profit is a 
great motivator, as free market exponents continually remind us.  So great, in 
fact, that other motives are over-ridden when push comes to shove.  Removing 
profit should be a priority and funding agencies should lead the way by 
requiring sufficient publishing funds be included in proposal budgets as well 
as requiring those receiving their funds to only publish in open-access 
journals.
Science be damned (the journal, that is).

If this were the case, Geoffrey’s assertion that those who want to publish must 
also agree to review would have more weight.  As it is, many (seemingly 
including Atanu) choose not to make money for the shareholders of large 
publishing houses.

Phil Ganter
Biological Sciences
Tennessee State University


On 3/30/15, 1:57 PM, "Atanu Mukherjee"  wrote:

>Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me.
>
>"The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of 
>good reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then?
>
>"Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in 
>chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did 
>you mean by "differentially compensated", exactly?
>
>"Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need 
>reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then 
>why did the thread started otherwise?
>
>"If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that 
>you submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer 
>review system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not 
>relevant at all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current 
>flaw-filled peer reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act 
>like a professional by paying a good salary to the reviewers and see 
>the change you want. Period.
>
>
>
>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey < 
>geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu> wrote:
>
>> The economics are really rather different.
>>
>> Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in 
>> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated.
>>
>> Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also 
>> need reviewers to get their papers published.
>>
>> If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that 
>>you  submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer 
>>review  system and that behavior is not professional at all.
>>
>>  +/*\+ 
>> Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
>> Professor, Natural Resource Management Co-Director, Geospatial 
>> Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE) South Dakota State University
>> 1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B
>> Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA
>> voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX)
>> email: geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu
>> http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:
>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee
>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM
>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of 
>> papers
>>
>> Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end 
>>they  don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals 
>>charge for a  paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of 
>>money to the authors  for publishing but the people who perform the 
>>major role behind the  journals' success get unpaid. Sorry, either you 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Malcolm McCallum]

This sounds similar to Pearage of Science.
I occassionally do things for them.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Stefano Liccioli 
wrote:

> Good morning,
> in regards to the reviewing issue and the fact that "so many people
> decline to do reviews these days",I was wondering how many of the
> Ecologgers (at least, those of you who are reviewers) are registered on
> Poblons
> https://publons.com/
> I was recently invited to do so and I haven't done yet (perhaps waiting to
> hear on it from colleagues) - but maybe it could help to actually get a
> credit for the reviewing work, and who knows, perhaps making it more
> official and less prone to fraud?
> Thanks for your input.
> Stefano
>
>
>
>
>  Il Sabato 28 Marzo 2015 22:06, Stephen L. Young 
> ha scritto:
>
>
>  It is interesting that we tend to look at how things were and reminisce
> about how good it was then, yet I wonder if we were thinking similarly at
> that time? The same things have been said regarding formula funding and
> IDC rates and while comparison with the past is good, there needs to be a
> balance with what kinds of creative solutions we can come up with for the
> future.
> Steve
>
>
> >
> >
> >On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
> >
> >>What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of a
> >> working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small
> >>allotments
> >> from the university's research foundation, with high-level graduate
> >> students doing some of the editorial work as part of a stipend deal?
> >> Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it seems to
> >>me
> >> like a better recipe for scientific integrity than being a
> >>profit-center of
> >> a corporate machine.
> >>
> >> Your thoughts, please...
> >>
> >> Martin M. Meiss
> >>
> >> 2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young :
> >>
> >> > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that
> >>get
> >> > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to
> >>offer
> >> > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars.
> >> > Steve
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews
> >>these
> >> > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep
> >> > >looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews
> >>don't
> >> > >recommend another potential reviewer.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have
> >>done
> >> > >> work
> >> > >> that crosses over.
> >> > >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae
> >>in
> >> an
> >> > >> agronomic landscape.
> >> > >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is
> >> > >>versed
> >> > >> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third
> >>who
> >> > >> does
> >> > >> amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her
> >>to
> >> > >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is
> >> INCREDIBLY
> >> > >> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations
> >>at
> >> > >>HCB.
> >> > >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers
> >>too.
> >> > >>I'm
> >> > >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I
> >>think
> >> is
> >> > >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.
> >> It
> >> > >> gets
> >> > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know
> >>a
> >> lot
> >> > >> of
> >> > >> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are
> >>doing
> >> > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going
> >>to
> >> end
> >> > >> up
> >> > >> commun

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Ganter, Philip]

If the model of scientific publishing is the for-profit publisher hiding
publicly funded research behind a pay wall and making a profit, then I
think most would agree with Atanu: reviewers should be paid.

If the model is the older model of professional societies and individual
scientists (or small groups of scientists) publishing as a service to
their field (so well described by Malcolm in an earlier posting) then most
would disagree with Atanu as there is no money for paying reviewers and we
all benefit from their work.

There was a time when the latter model was more common or, at least, was
seen by most scientists as more common.  This perception produced the
comment about free-riding, Atanu, not animosity towards you personally.

Unless we stop publishing in for-profit journals (is Wiley or Reed
Elselvier any less predatory than Jacobs?), we risk motives other than the
communication of quality scientific work taking command of science
publishing.  Profit is a great motivator, as free market exponents
continually remind us.  So great, in fact, that other motives are
over-ridden when push comes to shove.  Removing profit should be a
priority and funding agencies should lead the way by requiring sufficient
publishing funds be included in proposal budgets as well as requiring
those receiving their funds to only publish in open-access journals.
Science be damned (the journal, that is).

If this were the case, Geoffrey’s assertion that those who want to publish
must also agree to review would have more weight.  As it is, many
(seemingly including Atanu) choose not to make money for the shareholders
of large publishing houses.

Phil Ganter
Biological Sciences
Tennessee State University


On 3/30/15, 1:57 PM, "Atanu Mukherjee"  wrote:

>Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me.
>
>"The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of good
>reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then?
>
>"Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
>chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did you
>mean by "differentially compensated", exactly?
>
>"Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
>reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then why
>did the thread started otherwise?
>
>"If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that you
>submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
>system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not relevant at
>all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current flaw-filled peer
>reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act like a professional
>by
>paying a good salary to the reviewers and see the change you want. Period.
>
>
>
>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey <
>geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu> wrote:
>
>> The economics are really rather different.
>>
>> Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
>> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated.
>>
>> Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
>> reviewers to get their papers published.
>>
>> If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that
>>you
>> submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
>> system and that behavior is not professional at all.
>>
>>  +/*\+ 
>> Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
>> Professor, Natural Resource Management
>> Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE)
>> South Dakota State University
>> 1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B
>> Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA
>> voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX)
>> email: geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu
>> http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:
>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee
>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM
>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
>>
>> Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end
>>they
>> don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals charge
>>for a
>> paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of money to the
>>authors
>> for publishing but the people who perform the major role behind the
>> journals' success get unpaid. Sorry, either you pay the reviewers
>>(nobody
>> is interested in your subscr

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Malcolm McCallum]

licity the reviewer, I always ask
> him/her
> > >>to
> > >> > >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is
> > >> INCREDIBLY
> > >> > >> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer
> recommendations
> > >>at
> > >> > >>HCB.
> > >> > >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers
> > >>too.
> > >> > >>I'm
> > >> > >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I
> > >>think
> > >> is
> > >> > >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some
> way.
> > >> It
> > >> > >> gets
> > >> > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to
> know
> > >>a
> > >> lot
> > >> > >> of
> > >> > >> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are
> > >>doing
> > >> > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going
> > >>to
> > >> end
> > >> > >> up
> > >> > >> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long,
> and
> > >> > >> everyone knows everyone.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Malcolm
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
> > >> > >> 
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest.
> > >>When I
> > >> > >>>do,
> > >> > >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious,
> > >> > >>>unbiased
> > >> > >>> review
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Eric S. Menges
> > >> > >>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal
> > >> > >>> 
> > >> > >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
> > >> > >>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [
> > >> > >>> mellor.da...@gmail.com]
> > >> > >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
> > >> > >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > >> > >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions
> of
> > >> > >>>papers
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation
> > >>servicesâ€
> > >> > >>> that pose
> > >> > >>> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the
> > >>“suggested
> > >> > >>> reviewer† feature in the submission process to mislead editors
> > >>into
> > >> > >>> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC
> > >>blog
> > >> > >>> post
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> >
> > >>
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi
> > >> > >>>ew/
> > >> > >>> <
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> >
> > >>
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi
> > >> > >>>ew/>
> > >> > >>> explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening
> > >> > >>> elsewhere,
> > >> > >>> and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light,
> given
> > >>the
> > >> > >>> potential tarnish it creates.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> David Mellor
> > >> > >>> Center for Open Science <http://centerforopenscience.org/>
> > >> > >>> (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed
> > >> > >>>Central,
> > >> > >>> 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Bradley Carlson]

Something occurred to me - maybe it's a new thought or maybe one I forgot
hearing elsewhere. If page charges are burdening some researchers, and the
lack of compensation (monetary, prestige, etc.) for peer-reviewing is
inhibiting the review process, why not link these two? Couldn't a journal
keep track of its reviewers and provide them with vouchers for partial
discounts on page charges or publication fees? Those without money could do
a few reviews for a journal and get fees waived; those with lots of money
but little time to contribute to peer review could just pay the fees to
support the system. I'm sure some problems would remain (e.g., bias in who
is *asked *to provide peer reviews, the journals you review for might not
be the same you publish in, etc.), but it seems to me like an improvement
on the current system.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Atanu Mukherjee 
wrote:

> Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me.
>
> "The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of good
> reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then?
>
> "Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did you
> mean by "differentially compensated", exactly?
>
> "Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
> reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then why
> did the thread started otherwise?
>
> "If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that you
> submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
> system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not relevant at
> all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current flaw-filled peer
> reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act like a professional by
> paying a good salary to the reviewers and see the change you want. Period.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey <
> geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu> wrote:
>
> > The economics are really rather different.
> >
> > Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
> > chronically short supply and is differentially compensated.
> >
> > Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
> > reviewers to get their papers published.
> >
> > If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that you
> > submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
> > system and that behavior is not professional at all.
> >
> >  +/*\+ 
> > Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
> > Professor, Natural Resource Management
> > Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE)
> > South Dakota State University
> > 1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B
> > Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA
> > voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX)
> > email: geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu
> > http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:
> > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee
> > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
> >
> > Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end
> they
> > don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals charge
> for a
> > paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of money to the authors
> > for publishing but the people who perform the major role behind the
> > journals' success get unpaid. Sorry, either you pay the reviewers (nobody
> > is interested in your subscription waiver or something like that) a
> > standard money or you keep seeing the trend: "so many people decline to
> do
> > reviews these days". When you're doing business, be professional.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Stefano Liccioli  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Good morning,
> > > in regards to the reviewing issue and the fact that "so many people
> > > decline to do reviews these days",I was wondering how many of the
> > > Ecologgers (at least, those of you who are reviewers) are registered
> > > on Poblons https://publons.com/ I was recently invited to do so and I
> > > haven't done yet (perhaps waiting to hear on it from colleagues) - but
> > > maybe it could help to actually get a cre

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Atanu Mukherjee]

Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me.

"The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of good
reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then?

"Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did you
mean by "differentially compensated", exactly?

"Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then why
did the thread started otherwise?

"If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that you
submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not relevant at
all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current flaw-filled peer
reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act like a professional by
paying a good salary to the reviewers and see the change you want. Period.



On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey <
geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu> wrote:

> The economics are really rather different.
>
> Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated.
>
> Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
> reviewers to get their papers published.
>
> If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that you
> submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
> system and that behavior is not professional at all.
>
>  +/*\+ 
> Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
> Professor, Natural Resource Management
> Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE)
> South Dakota State University
> 1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B
> Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA
> voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX)
> email: geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu
> http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:
> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
>
> Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end they
> don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals charge for a
> paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of money to the authors
> for publishing but the people who perform the major role behind the
> journals' success get unpaid. Sorry, either you pay the reviewers (nobody
> is interested in your subscription waiver or something like that) a
> standard money or you keep seeing the trend: "so many people decline to do
> reviews these days". When you're doing business, be professional.
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Stefano Liccioli 
> wrote:
>
> > Good morning,
> > in regards to the reviewing issue and the fact that "so many people
> > decline to do reviews these days",I was wondering how many of the
> > Ecologgers (at least, those of you who are reviewers) are registered
> > on Poblons https://publons.com/ I was recently invited to do so and I
> > haven't done yet (perhaps waiting to hear on it from colleagues) - but
> > maybe it could help to actually get a credit for the reviewing work,
> > and who knows, perhaps making it more official and less prone to
> > fraud?
> > Thanks for your input.
> > Stefano
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Il Sabato 28 Marzo 2015 22:06, Stephen L. Young
> >  ha scritto:
> >
> >
> >  It is interesting that we tend to look at how things were and
> > reminisce about how good it was then, yet I wonder if we were thinking
> > similarly at that time? The same things have been said regarding
> > formula funding and IDC rates and while comparison with the past is
> > good, there needs to be a balance with what kinds of creative
> > solutions we can come up with for the future.
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
> > >
> > >>What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of
> > >>a  working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small
> > >>allotments  from the university's research foundation, with
> > >>high-level graduate  students doing some of the editorial work as
> > >>part of a stipend deal?
> > >

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Henebry, Geoffrey]

The economics are really rather different.

Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in chronically 
short supply and is differentially compensated. 

Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need 
reviewers to get their papers published.  

If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that you 
submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review system 
and that behavior is not professional at all. 

 +/*\+ 
Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
Professor, Natural Resource Management 
Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE)
South Dakota State University 
1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B 
Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA
voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX)
email: geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu
http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m



-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end they 
don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals charge for a 
paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of money to the authors for 
publishing but the people who perform the major role behind the journals' 
success get unpaid. Sorry, either you pay the reviewers (nobody is interested 
in your subscription waiver or something like that) a standard money or you 
keep seeing the trend: "so many people decline to do reviews these days". When 
you're doing business, be professional.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Stefano Liccioli 
wrote:

> Good morning,
> in regards to the reviewing issue and the fact that "so many people 
> decline to do reviews these days",I was wondering how many of the 
> Ecologgers (at least, those of you who are reviewers) are registered 
> on Poblons https://publons.com/ I was recently invited to do so and I 
> haven't done yet (perhaps waiting to hear on it from colleagues) - but 
> maybe it could help to actually get a credit for the reviewing work, 
> and who knows, perhaps making it more official and less prone to 
> fraud?
> Thanks for your input.
> Stefano
>
>
>
>
>  Il Sabato 28 Marzo 2015 22:06, Stephen L. Young 
>  ha scritto:
>
>
>  It is interesting that we tend to look at how things were and 
> reminisce about how good it was then, yet I wonder if we were thinking 
> similarly at that time? The same things have been said regarding 
> formula funding and IDC rates and while comparison with the past is 
> good, there needs to be a balance with what kinds of creative 
> solutions we can come up with for the future.
> Steve
>
>
> >
> >
> >On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
> >
> >>What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of 
> >>a  working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small 
> >>allotments  from the university's research foundation, with 
> >>high-level graduate  students doing some of the editorial work as 
> >>part of a stipend deal?
> >> Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it 
> >>seems to me  like a better recipe for scientific integrity than 
> >>being a profit-center of  a corporate machine.
> >>
> >> Your thoughts, please...
> >>
> >> Martin M. Meiss
> >>
> >> 2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young :
> >>
> >> > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does 
> >> > that
> >>get
> >> > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to
> >>offer
> >> > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars.
> >> > Steve
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" 
> >> > 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do 
> >> > >reviews
> >>these
> >> > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to 
> >> > >keep looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do 
> >> > >reviews
> >>don't
> >> > >recommend another potential reviewer.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who 
> >&

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Atanu Mukherjee]

ome way.
> >> It
> >> > >> gets
> >> > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know
> >>a
> >> lot
> >> > >> of
> >> > >> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are
> >>doing
> >> > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going
> >>to
> >> end
> >> > >> up
> >> > >> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
> >> > >> everyone knows everyone.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Malcolm
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest.
> >>When I
> >> > >>>do,
> >> > >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious,
> >> > >>>unbiased
> >> > >>> review
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Eric S. Menges
> >> > >>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal
> >> > >>> 
> >> > >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
> >> > >>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [
> >> > >>> mellor.da...@gmail.com]
> >> > >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
> >> > >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> >> > >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of
> >> > >>>papers
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation
> >>servicesâ€
> >> > >>> that pose
> >> > >>> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the
> >>“suggested
> >> > >>> reviewer† feature in the submission process to mislead editors
> >>into
> >> > >>> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC
> >>blog
> >> > >>> post
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> >>http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi
> >> > >>>ew/
> >> > >>> <
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> >>http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi
> >> > >>>ew/>
> >> > >>> explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening
> >> > >>> elsewhere,
> >> > >>> and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given
> >>the
> >> > >>> potential tarnish it creates.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> David Mellor
> >> > >>> Center for Open Science <http://centerforopenscience.org/>
> >> > >>> (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss 
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed
> >> > >>>Central,
> >> > >>> > <http://www.biomedcentral.com/about> puts out 277 journals.
> >>That
> >> > >>> seems
> >> > >>> > like a lot of concentration of power.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Martin M. Meiss
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye :
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
> >> > >>> >> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
> >> > >>> >> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP
> >> > >> En

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Stefano Liccioli]

Good morning,
in regards to the reviewing issue and the fact that "so many people decline to 
do reviews these days",I was wondering how many of the Ecologgers (at least, 
those of you who are reviewers) are registered on Poblons 
https://publons.com/
I was recently invited to do so and I haven't done yet (perhaps waiting to hear 
on it from colleagues) - but maybe it could help to actually get a credit for 
the reviewing work, and who knows, perhaps making it more official and less 
prone to fraud?
Thanks for your input.
Stefano
 



 Il Sabato 28 Marzo 2015 22:06, Stephen L. Young  ha 
scritto:
   

 It is interesting that we tend to look at how things were and reminisce
about how good it was then, yet I wonder if we were thinking similarly at
that time? The same things have been said regarding formula funding and
IDC rates and while comparison with the past is good, there needs to be a
balance with what kinds of creative solutions we can come up with for the
future.
Steve


>
>
>On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
>
>>What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of a
>> working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small
>>allotments
>> from the university's research foundation, with high-level graduate
>> students doing some of the editorial work as part of a stipend deal?
>> Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it seems to
>>me
>> like a better recipe for scientific integrity than being a
>>profit-center of
>> a corporate machine.
>>
>> Your thoughts, please...
>>
>> Martin M. Meiss
>>
>> 2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young :
>>
>> > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that
>>get
>> > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to
>>offer
>> > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars.
>> > Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews
>>these
>> > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep
>> > >looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews
>>don't
>> > >recommend another potential reviewer.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have
>>done
>> > >> work
>> > >> that crosses over.
>> > >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae
>>in
>> an
>> > >> agronomic landscape.
>> > >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is
>> > >>versed
>> > >> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third
>>who
>> > >> does
>> > >> amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her
>>to
>> > >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is
>> INCREDIBLY
>> > >> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations
>>at
>> > >>HCB.
>> > >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers
>>too.
>> > >>I'm
>> > >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I
>>think
>> is
>> > >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.
>> It
>> > >> gets
>> > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know
>>a
>> lot
>> > >> of
>> > >> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are
>>doing
>> > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going
>>to
>> end
>> > >> up
>> > >> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
>> > >> everyone knows everyone.
>> > >>
>> > >> Malcolm
>> > >>
>> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
>> > >> 
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest.
>>When I
>> > >>>do,
>> > >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious,
>> > >>>unbiased
>> > >>> review
>> > >>>
>> > >>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Stephen L. Young]

It is interesting that we tend to look at how things were and reminisce
about how good it was then, yet I wonder if we were thinking similarly at
that time? The same things have been said regarding formula funding and
IDC rates and while comparison with the past is good, there needs to be a
balance with what kinds of creative solutions we can come up with for the
future.
Steve


>
>
>On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
>
>>What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of a
>> working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small
>>allotments
>> from the university's research foundation, with high-level graduate
>> students doing some of the editorial work as part of a stipend deal?
>> Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it seems to
>>me
>> like a better recipe for scientific integrity than being a
>>profit-center of
>> a corporate machine.
>>
>> Your thoughts, please...
>>
>> Martin M. Meiss
>>
>> 2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young :
>>
>> > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that
>>get
>> > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to
>>offer
>> > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars.
>> > Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews
>>these
>> > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep
>> > >looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews
>>don't
>> > >recommend another potential reviewer.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have
>>done
>> > >> work
>> > >> that crosses over.
>> > >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae
>>in
>> an
>> > >> agronomic landscape.
>> > >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is
>> > >>versed
>> > >> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third
>>who
>> > >> does
>> > >> amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her
>>to
>> > >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is
>> INCREDIBLY
>> > >> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations
>>at
>> > >>HCB.
>> > >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers
>>too.
>> > >>I'm
>> > >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I
>>think
>> is
>> > >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.
>> It
>> > >> gets
>> > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know
>>a
>> lot
>> > >> of
>> > >> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are
>>doing
>> > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going
>>to
>> end
>> > >> up
>> > >> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
>> > >> everyone knows everyone.
>> > >>
>> > >> Malcolm
>> > >>
>> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
>> > >> 
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest.
>>When I
>> > >>>do,
>> > >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious,
>> > >>>unbiased
>> > >>> review
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Eric S. Menges
>> > >>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal
>> > >>> 
>> > >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
>> > >>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [
>> > >>> mellor.da...@gmail.com]
>> > >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
>> > >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>> > >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of
>> > >>>papers
>> > 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[David Duffy]

In business, since the Industrial Revolution, there has been a saying that
you can have two out of three: Fast, Cheap, or Good. American society has
gone with fast and cheap, and science publishing has been dragged into the
same choice of values. I doubt this is good for science or society in the
long run, but you pays yer money and you takes your choice.

Cheers,

David Duffy

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Martin Meiss  wrote:

> I'm till wondering about the fact that one financial interest controls (in
> some ways at least) 277 journals.  Does each of those journals have
> independent editors?  Is some bureaucrat assigning "peer" reviewers to
> journals whose subject matter is utterly unknown to him/her?  Is it handled
> the way Dunkin' Donuts might change the formula for their cream filling,
> and then send it out to all the franchises?
>
> What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of a
> working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small allotments
> from the university's research foundation, with high-level graduate
> students doing some of the editorial work as part of a stipend deal?
> Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it seems to me
> like a better recipe for scientific integrity than being a profit-center of
> a corporate machine.
>
> Your thoughts, please...
>
> Martin M. Meiss
>
> 2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young :
>
> > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that get
> > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to offer
> > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars.
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews these
> > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep
> > >looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews don't
> > >recommend another potential reviewer.
> > >
> > >
> > > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done
> > >> work
> > >> that crosses over.
> > >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in
> an
> > >> agronomic landscape.
> > >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is
> > >>versed
> > >> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who
> > >> does
> > >> amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to
> > >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is
> INCREDIBLY
> > >> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations at
> > >>HCB.
> > >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too.
> > >>I'm
> > >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think
> is
> > >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.  It
> > >> gets
> > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a
> lot
> > >> of
> > >> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are doing
> > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to
> end
> > >> up
> > >> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
> > >> everyone knows everyone.
> > >>
> > >> Malcolm
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
> > >> 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I
> > >>>do,
> > >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious,
> > >>>unbiased
> > >>> review
> > >>>
> > >>> Eric S. Menges
> > >>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal
> > >>> 
> > >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
> > >>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [
> > >>> mellor.da...@gmail.com]
> > >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
> > >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of
> > >>>papers
> > >>>
> > >>> It appears to be an

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Martin Meiss]

Hi, Malcolm,
   I read your entire post, and found it quite moving.  I don't know how to
estimate or balance the human cost involved, but I'd hold it up as better
way to achieve scientific excellence and integrity than the slick
procedures of for-profit scientific publishing.

Martin

2015-03-28 12:31 GMT-04:00 Malcolm McCallum <
malcolm.mccallum.ta...@gmail.com>:

> I don't know, I enjoy doing peer reviews.  But, I don't treat peer review
> like editing a journal.  If the paper is ripe with bad writing, I might
> correct a paragraph and tell them to do the whole paper.  Mostly, I dwell
> on did they miss citations, cover the literature, approach the problem
> properly, analyze it correctly, explain what they did adequately, Report
> the results fully, and discuss the implications logically.  Then, make
> recommendations to improve the paper. I don't re-write it and I don't think
> anyone else hould either.
>
> I don't know how many peer reviews I have done in teh past 10 years, I list
> 80 or so on my CV, but its actually well over 150.  This week, I for the
> first time recommended a paper be rejected due to plagiarism, not
> self-plagiarism either (which is really an issue of copyright violation,
> not plagiarism anyway), but blagiarism verbatim right off of Wikipedia.
> How lazy are you that you copy and past your intro material off of
> wikipedia?  ITs bad enough when students do it in class, but in a
> scientific manuscript?  Wow
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Stephen L. Young 
> wrote:
>
> > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that get
> > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to offer
> > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars.
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews these
> > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep
> > >looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews don't
> > >recommend another potential reviewer.
> > >
> > >
> > > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done
> > >> work
> > >> that crosses over.
> > >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in
> an
> > >> agronomic landscape.
> > >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is
> > >>versed
> > >> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who
> > >> does
> > >> amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to
> > >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is
> INCREDIBLY
> > >> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations at
> > >>HCB.
> > >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too.
> > >>I'm
> > >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think
> is
> > >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.  It
> > >> gets
> > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a
> lot
> > >> of
> > >> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are doing
> > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to
> end
> > >> up
> > >> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
> > >> everyone knows everyone.
> > >>
> > >> Malcolm
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
> > >> 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I
> > >>>do,
> > >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious,
> > >>>unbiased
> > >>> review
> > >>>
> > >>> Eric S. Menges
> > >>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal
> > >>> 
> > >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
> > >>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [
> > >>> mellor.da...@gmail.com]
> > >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
> > >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated rev

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Malcolm McCallum]

na you see with PLoS ONe,
due to a large nubmer of papers that are < 1 yr old deflating the nubmer of
citations in the calculation of the 2yr rating (most papers tend to only
start accumulating cites in their second year).

I actually wonder how the heck I managed to get all my school work done,
devote enough time to student, and still operate the journal, but I did.  I
do know that my productivity in publishing has been lower for the past five
years due to time invested in the journal.  But, part of that is also due
to a major paper that took a good five years to write and will hopefully be
coming out in the next six mo to a year (in review).  Doing 20-30 pages
(typed) of mathematical calculations on extinction rates tends to take a
while, especially when you do all the work, and then the IUCN makes a
majaor update!!!

Anyway, maybe that illustrates why most journals eventually end up in
publishing houses.  They are easier, and generally add some bells and
whistles, lower some costs (several things can be very costly for a single
journal or group of journals, but cheap for a single publishing house with
100+ journals).  Find five people on this listserv who are willing to sit
and do layouts for every paper in an issue.  You have a challenge there
reminiscent of Lott's quest in Sodum. ;)

I wonder if anyone read this whole thing?
Malcolm



On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss  wrote:

> I'm till wondering about the fact that one financial interest controls (in
> some ways at least) 277 journals.  Does each of those journals have
> independent editors?  Is some bureaucrat assigning "peer" reviewers to
> journals whose subject matter is utterly unknown to him/her?  Is it handled
> the way Dunkin' Donuts might change the formula for their cream filling,
> and then send it out to all the franchises?
>
> What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of a
> working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small allotments
> from the university's research foundation, with high-level graduate
> students doing some of the editorial work as part of a stipend deal?
> Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it seems to me
> like a better recipe for scientific integrity than being a profit-center of
> a corporate machine.
>
> Your thoughts, please...
>
> Martin M. Meiss
>
> 2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young :
>
> > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that get
> > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to offer
> > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars.
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews these
> > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep
> > >looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews don't
> > >recommend another potential reviewer.
> > >
> > >
> > > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done
> > >> work
> > >> that crosses over.
> > >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in
> an
> > >> agronomic landscape.
> > >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is
> > >>versed
> > >> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who
> > >> does
> > >> amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to
> > >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is
> INCREDIBLY
> > >> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations at
> > >>HCB.
> > >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too.
> > >>I'm
> > >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think
> is
> > >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.  It
> > >> gets
> > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a
> lot
> > >> of
> > >> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are doing
> > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to
> end
> > >> up
> > >> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
> > >> everyone knows everyone.
> > >>
> > >> Malcolm
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
> > >>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Malcolm McCallum]

I don't know, I enjoy doing peer reviews.  But, I don't treat peer review
like editing a journal.  If the paper is ripe with bad writing, I might
correct a paragraph and tell them to do the whole paper.  Mostly, I dwell
on did they miss citations, cover the literature, approach the problem
properly, analyze it correctly, explain what they did adequately, Report
the results fully, and discuss the implications logically.  Then, make
recommendations to improve the paper. I don't re-write it and I don't think
anyone else hould either.

I don't know how many peer reviews I have done in teh past 10 years, I list
80 or so on my CV, but its actually well over 150.  This week, I for the
first time recommended a paper be rejected due to plagiarism, not
self-plagiarism either (which is really an issue of copyright violation,
not plagiarism anyway), but blagiarism verbatim right off of Wikipedia.
How lazy are you that you copy and past your intro material off of
wikipedia?  ITs bad enough when students do it in class, but in a
scientific manuscript?  Wow

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Stephen L. Young 
wrote:

> There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that get
> you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to offer
> honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars.
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" 
> wrote:
>
> >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews these
> >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep
> >looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews don't
> >recommend another potential reviewer.
> >
> >
> > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done
> >> work
> >> that crosses over.
> >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in an
> >> agronomic landscape.
> >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is
> >>versed
> >> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who
> >> does
> >> amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to
> >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is INCREDIBLY
> >> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations at
> >>HCB.
> >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too.
> >>I'm
> >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think is
> >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.  It
> >> gets
> >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a lot
> >> of
> >> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are doing
> >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to end
> >> up
> >> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
> >> everyone knows everyone.
> >>
> >> Malcolm
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I
> >>>do,
> >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious,
> >>>unbiased
> >>> review
> >>>
> >>> Eric S. Menges
> >>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal
> >>> 
> >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
> >>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [
> >>> mellor.da...@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
> >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of
> >>>papers
> >>>
> >>> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation servicesâ€
> >>> that pose
> >>> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested
> >>> reviewer† feature in the submission process to mislead editors into
> >>> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog
> >>> post
> >>>
> >>>
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi
> >>>ew/
> >>> <
> >>>
> >>>
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi
> >>>ew/>
> >>> explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happ

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Martin Meiss]

I'm till wondering about the fact that one financial interest controls (in
some ways at least) 277 journals.  Does each of those journals have
independent editors?  Is some bureaucrat assigning "peer" reviewers to
journals whose subject matter is utterly unknown to him/her?  Is it handled
the way Dunkin' Donuts might change the formula for their cream filling,
and then send it out to all the franchises?

What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of a
working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small allotments
from the university's research foundation, with high-level graduate
students doing some of the editorial work as part of a stipend deal?
Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it seems to me
like a better recipe for scientific integrity than being a profit-center of
a corporate machine.

Your thoughts, please...

Martin M. Meiss

2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young :

> There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that get
> you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to offer
> honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars.
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" 
> wrote:
>
> >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews these
> >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep
> >looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews don't
> >recommend another potential reviewer.
> >
> >
> > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done
> >> work
> >> that crosses over.
> >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in an
> >> agronomic landscape.
> >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is
> >>versed
> >> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who
> >> does
> >> amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to
> >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is INCREDIBLY
> >> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations at
> >>HCB.
> >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too.
> >>I'm
> >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think is
> >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.  It
> >> gets
> >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a lot
> >> of
> >> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are doing
> >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to end
> >> up
> >> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
> >> everyone knows everyone.
> >>
> >> Malcolm
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I
> >>>do,
> >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious,
> >>>unbiased
> >>> review
> >>>
> >>> Eric S. Menges
> >>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal
> >>> 
> >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
> >>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [
> >>> mellor.da...@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
> >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of
> >>>papers
> >>>
> >>> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation servicesâ€
> >>> that pose
> >>> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested
> >>> reviewer† feature in the submission process to mislead editors into
> >>> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog
> >>> post
> >>>
> >>>
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi
> >>>ew/
> >>> <
> >>>
> >>>
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi
> >>>ew/>
> >>> explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening
> >>> elsewhere,
> >>> and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the
> >>> potential tarnish it create

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Stephen L. Young]

There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that get
you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to offer
honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars.
Steve





On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis"  wrote:

>The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews these
>days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep
>looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews don't
>recommend another potential reviewer.
>
>
> I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done
>> work
>> that crosses over.
>> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in an
>> agronomic landscape.
>> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is
>>versed
>> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who
>> does
>> amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to
>> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is INCREDIBLY
>> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations at
>>HCB.
>> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too.
>>I'm
>> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think is
>> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.  It
>> gets
>> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a lot
>> of
>> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are doing
>> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to end
>> up
>> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
>> everyone knows everyone.
>>
>> Malcolm
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I
>>>do,
>>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious,
>>>unbiased
>>> review
>>>
>>> Eric S. Menges
>>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal
>>> ____________
>>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
>>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [
>>> mellor.da...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
>>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of
>>>papers
>>>
>>> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services”
>>> that pose
>>> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested
>>> reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into
>>> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog
>>> post
>>> 
>>>http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi
>>>ew/
>>> <
>>> 
>>>http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi
>>>ew/>
>>> explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening
>>> elsewhere,
>>> and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the
>>> potential tarnish it creates.
>>>
>>> David Mellor
>>> Center for Open Science <http://centerforopenscience.org/>
>>> (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor
>>>
>>> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed
>>>Central,
>>> > <http://www.biomedcentral.com/about> puts out 277 journals.  That
>>> seems
>>> > like a lot of concentration of power.
>>> >
>>> > Martin M. Meiss
>>> >
>>> > 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye :
>>> >
>>> >> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
>>> >> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
>>> >> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP
>> Environmental Studies Program
>> Green Mountain College
>> Poultney, Vermont
>>
>>  “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich
>> array
>> of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Judith S. Weis]

The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews these
days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep
looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews don't
recommend another potential reviewer.


 I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done
> work
> that crosses over.
> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in an
> agronomic landscape.
> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is versed
> in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who
> does
> amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to
> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is INCREDIBLY
> productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations at HCB.
> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too.  I'm
> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think is
> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.  It
> gets
> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a lot
> of
> people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are doing
> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to end
> up
> communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
> everyone knows everyone.
>
> Malcolm
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric
> 
> wrote:
>
>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I do,
>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious, unbiased
>> review
>>
>> Eric S. Menges
>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal
>> 
>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
>> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [
>> mellor.da...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
>>
>> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services”
>> that pose
>> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested
>> reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into
>> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog
>> post
>> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/
>> <
>> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/>
>> explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening
>> elsewhere,
>> and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the
>> potential tarnish it creates.
>>
>> David Mellor
>> Center for Open Science <http://centerforopenscience.org/>
>> (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor
>>
>> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
>> >
>> > I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central,
>> > <http://www.biomedcentral.com/about> puts out 277 journals.  That
>> seems
>> > like a lot of concentration of power.
>> >
>> > Martin M. Meiss
>> >
>> > 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye :
>> >
>> >> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
>> >> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
>> >> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP
> Environmental Studies Program
> Green Mountain College
> Poultney, Vermont
>
>  “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich
> array
> of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a
> many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers
> alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as
> Americans.”
> -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973
> into law.
>
> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
> Allan
> Nation
>
> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
> 1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
> and pollution.
> 2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
>   MAY help restore populations.
> 2022: Soylent Green is People!
>
> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
> Wealth w/o work
> Pleasure w/o conscience
> Knowledge w/o character
> Commerce w/o morality
> Science w/o humanity
> Worship w/o sacrifice
> Politics w/o principle
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
> destroy all copies of the original message.
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Don McKenzie]

Many journals ask the authors for up to five recommended referees. Those aren’t 
always the only ones chosen, but in my experience it happens often.
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Judith S. Weis > > wrote:
>> 
>> How can this happen when the editors of the journal invite the reviewers?
>> That's the type of peer review I'm familiar with.
>> 
>> 
>>> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>>> 
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-
>>>  
>>> affect-other-journals/
>>> 
> 
Don McKenzie
US Forest Service
University of Washington
d...@uw.edu
> 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Malcolm McCallum]

I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done work
that crosses over.
For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in an
agronomic landscape.
I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is versed
in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who does
amphibian tox.  When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to
recommend someone else if they are unable to do it.  This is INCREDIBLY
productive and successful.  We don't take reviewer recommendations at HCB.
I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too.  I'm
always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think is
well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way.  It gets
really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a lot of
people and you also tick off your fair share.  Also, if you are doing
research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to end up
communicating with others who do similar stuff.  It isn't long, and
everyone knows everyone.

Malcolm

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric 
wrote:

> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I do,
> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious, unbiased
> review
>
> Eric S. Menges
> Editor, Natural Areas Journal
> 
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [
> mellor.da...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
>
> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that pose
> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested
> reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into
> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/
> <
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/>
> explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening elsewhere,
> and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the
> potential tarnish it creates.
>
> David Mellor
> Center for Open Science <http://centerforopenscience.org/>
> (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor
>
> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central,
> > <http://www.biomedcentral.com/about> puts out 277 journals.  That seems
> > like a lot of concentration of power.
> >
> > Martin M. Meiss
> >
> > 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye :
> >
> >> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
> >> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
> >> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
> >>
>



-- 
Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP
Environmental Studies Program
Green Mountain College
Poultney, Vermont

 “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array
of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a
many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers
alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.”
-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973
into law.

"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan
Nation

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
  MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
Wealth w/o work
Pleasure w/o conscience
Knowledge w/o character
Commerce w/o morality
Science w/o humanity
Worship w/o sacrifice
Politics w/o principle

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Dr Zhi-Yun JIA]

Journal editor should select reviewers by themselves, and should contact 
potential reviewers with working affiliations' emails.

> -原始邮件-
> 发件人: "Adam Eichenwald" 
> 发送时间: 2015年3月28日 星期六
> 收件人: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> 抄送: 
> 主题: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
> 
> There was a scientist in South Korea who was "suggesting" well known 
> individuals to be reviewers, but would put in an email address that he had 
> access to. So while the journal though they were sending it out for peer 
> review they were just sending it to the author over and over again.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:38 PM, "Judith S. Weis"  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Editors need to vet them for appropriate expertise in the field, and use
> > them carefully and sparsely.
> > 
> > 
> >> Many journals ask the authors for up to five recommended referees. Those
> >> aren’t always the only ones chosen, but in my experience it happens often.
> >> 
> >>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Judith S. Weis
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> How can this happen when the editors of the journal invite the
> >>> reviewers?
> >>> That's the type of peer review I'm familiar with.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
> >>>> 
> >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Malcolm McCallum]

I personally have found grad students and postdocs often do better reviews
than others.  The only downside is they are often ultra-critical, but they
definitely put in the time and effort.

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:

> I thought that editors of scholarly journals only used reviewers that they
> know by reputation.  The "suggested reviewer" feature sounds like picking a
> name out of a hat.
>
> 2015-03-27 15:51 GMT-04:00 David Mellor :
>
> > It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that
> pose
> > on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested
> > reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into
> > contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post
> > http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/
> > manipulation-peer-review/ explains the fraud. My insight is that this
> > could be happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing to
> > bring it to light, given the potential tarnish it creates.
> >
> > David Mellor
> > Center for Open Science 
> > (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor
> >
> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central,
> >  puts out 277 journals.  That seems
> > like a lot of concentration of power.
> >
> > Martin M. Meiss
> >
> > 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye :
> >
> > I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
> > 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
> > retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP
Environmental Studies Program
Green Mountain College
Poultney, Vermont

 “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array
of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a
many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers
alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.”
-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973
into law.

"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan
Nation

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
  MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
Wealth w/o work
Pleasure w/o conscience
Knowledge w/o character
Commerce w/o morality
Science w/o humanity
Worship w/o sacrifice
Politics w/o principle

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Menges, Eric]

As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I do, it is 
because I know the person is capable of giving a serious, unbiased review

Eric S. Menges
Editor, Natural Areas Journal

From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [mellor.da...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that pose on 
behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested reviewer” 
feature in the submission process to mislead editors into contacting reviewers 
who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post 
http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/ 
<http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/> 
explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening elsewhere, and 
that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the potential 
tarnish it creates.

David Mellor
Center for Open Science <http://centerforopenscience.org/>
(434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor

> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
>
> I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central,
> <http://www.biomedcentral.com/about> puts out 277 journals.  That seems
> like a lot of concentration of power.
>
> Martin M. Meiss
>
> 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye :
>
>> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
>> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
>> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Adam Eichenwald]

There was a scientist in South Korea who was "suggesting" well known 
individuals to be reviewers, but would put in an email address that he had 
access to. So while the journal though they were sending it out for peer review 
they were just sending it to the author over and over again.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:38 PM, "Judith S. Weis"  
> wrote:
> 
> Editors need to vet them for appropriate expertise in the field, and use
> them carefully and sparsely.
> 
> 
>> Many journals ask the authors for up to five recommended referees. Those
>> aren’t always the only ones chosen, but in my experience it happens often.
>> 
>>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Judith S. Weis
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> How can this happen when the editors of the journal invite the
>>> reviewers?
>>> That's the type of peer review I'm familiar with.
>>> 
>>> 
 I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
 
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[David Mellor]

It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that pose on 
behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested reviewer” 
feature in the submission process to mislead editors into contacting reviewers 
who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post 
http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/ 
 
explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening elsewhere, and 
that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the potential 
tarnish it creates.

David Mellor
Center for Open Science 
(434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor

> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
> 
> I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central,
>  puts out 277 journals.  That seems
> like a lot of concentration of power.
> 
> Martin M. Meiss
> 
> 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye :
> 
>> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>> 
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
>> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
>> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>> 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[David Mellor]

It is. I don't know the history of how or why that practice came about, or
how "guilty" Biomed Central was of it relative to other publishers. I
expect that as workloads for editors increased, it was requested by editors
as a way for them to more easily find reviewers. I think this peer-reviewer
fraud ring (
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/science/science-journal-pulls-60-papers-in-peer-review-fraud.html)
also rigged the system based on fake reviewers. Biomed Central is barring
the use of such "suggested reviewers" from their automated submission
process, but there is nothing preventing an author from continuing to
suggest a reviewer in a cover letter to the editor.

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:

> I thought that editors of scholarly journals only used reviewers that they
> know by reputation.  The "suggested reviewer" feature sounds like picking a
> name out of a hat.
>
> 2015-03-27 15:51 GMT-04:00 David Mellor :
>
> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that pose
>> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested
>> reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into
>> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post
>> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/
>> manipulation-peer-review/ explains the fraud. My insight is that this
>> could be happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing to
>> bring it to light, given the potential tarnish it creates.
>>
>> David Mellor
>> Center for Open Science 
>> (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central,
>>  puts out 277 journals.  That seems
>> like a lot of concentration of power.
>>
>> Martin M. Meiss
>>
>> 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye :
>>
>> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
>> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
>> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Judith S. Weis]

Editors need to vet them for appropriate expertise in the field, and use
them carefully and sparsely.


> Many journals ask the authors for up to five recommended referees. Those
> aren’t always the only ones chosen, but in my experience it happens often.
>
>> On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Judith S. Weis
>>  wrote:
>>
>> How can this happen when the editors of the journal invite the
>> reviewers?
>> That's the type of peer review I'm familiar with.
>>
>>
>>> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>>>
>
>
>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Martin Meiss]

I thought that editors of scholarly journals only used reviewers that they
know by reputation.  The "suggested reviewer" feature sounds like picking a
name out of a hat.

2015-03-27 15:51 GMT-04:00 David Mellor :

> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that pose
> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested
> reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into
> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/
> manipulation-peer-review/ explains the fraud. My insight is that this
> could be happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing to
> bring it to light, given the potential tarnish it creates.
>
> David Mellor
> Center for Open Science 
> (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor
>
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss  wrote:
>
> I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central,
>  puts out 277 journals.  That seems
> like a lot of concentration of power.
>
> Martin M. Meiss
>
> 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye :
>
> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>
>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Malcolm McCallum]

In some fields the group of investigators is so small it makes conficts of
interest virtually impossible to avoid.  I have often wondered if a
particular lab has had dozens or more graduates how hard it would be to
avoid these things.  Further, the opportunity to allow something through
that is questionable, even if unintentiona is pretty high when the
community is small enough a large chunck of qualified reviewers are from
teh same group or lab.  So much dishonesty in so many areas today.  If
peope can subconsciously suppress racial and gender groups, why could they
not subconsciosly promote or supress people and/or groups of investigators
whom they know.  I can see this happening in peer review, interview
processes, grading, whatever.  I am not saying it does happen, just that
the large number of subconscious prejudices each of us must be very
difficult to entirely suppress.  This peer review scandal need not be
deliberate, but wow, does it look that way!

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:46 AM, David Inouye  wrote:

> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>



-- 
Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP
Environmental Studies Program
Green Mountain College
Poultney, Vermont

 “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array
of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a
many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers
alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.”
-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973
into law.

"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan
Nation

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
  MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
Wealth w/o work
Pleasure w/o conscience
Knowledge w/o character
Commerce w/o morality
Science w/o humanity
Worship w/o sacrifice
Politics w/o principle

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Martin Meiss]

I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central,
 puts out 277 journals.  That seems
like a lot of concentration of power.

Martin M. Meiss

2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye :

> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/
> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-
> retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers

[Judith S. Weis]

How can this happen when the editors of the journal invite the reviewers?
That's the type of peer review I'm familiar with.


> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
>