Wall of Shame

[goodkerma]

Interesting take on combating unethical academic publishing - Wall of Shame
Would love to hear @sueyom thoughts on this and how often people try to pull a fast one on the red journal

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sueyom]

Thank you for sharing that! Very bold approach. Not sure that is in keeping with the COPE guidelines.
@IJROBP had no retractions prior to Dr. Zietman's tenure but during his tenure there were several - maybe about every couple of years?
In the overall scientific literature, the number of retractions annually is increasing but the overall percentage of articles that are retracted has remained stable because the number of articles being published is increasing as well.
Plagiarism does not typically occur at @IJROBP because anything that fails screening and might be suspected of plagiarism is administratively returned and never goes to review. The most common type we see is self-plagiarism which is a reflection of pressures to publish leading to attempts at repetitive re-publication.
We have only very rarely detected data fabrication. We have a staff of methodology and statistical reviewers so I think people know it's hard to get through that without having real data. Our emerging challenge similar to other journals is how to check the integrity of images where manipulation is becoming more common due to sophisticated commercial software.
The most common way unethical behaviors are diagnosed at @IJROBP is that the article is published and someone from the public lodges a complaint which leads to a lengthy formal investigation and disposition.

 

[seper]

Hi Sue! What year did Zietman start?
There were retraction statements in 2011-12 Red Journals, for papers published > 10 years prior

 

[sueyom]

He started Jan 2012 officially but the EIC-elect actually starts working on the journal much earlier since the person is selected a year or more in advance. The first retractions were managed by Dr. Z and yes, it was difficult because the issues involved much older papers which were conducted under very different research processes than today.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Pakistan is a hot bed of academic fraud apparently.

 

[deleted1111261]

Pakistan is a hot bed of academic fraud apparently.

When I clicked that link, I immediately thought that woke folk gonna say there is something systemic against them.

This is a really, really bad idea from Cureus

 

[Mandelin Rain]

This is a really, really bad idea from Cureus

no doubt about that

 

[Lamount]

I’m against plagiarism and all… but this is a little creepy.

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

When I clicked that link, I immediately thought that woke folk gonna say there is something systemic against them.

This is a really, really bad idea from Cureus

I think the Cureus model brings some of this on themselves. Read their marketing "super fast peer review", etc.

If you are one who likes to cut corners then Cureus is the venue for you.

 

[sueyom]

That's very true. I think IJROBP is sort of fortunate in this one respect because not many people would risk publishing unethical work in a journal that is so carefully reviewed and then closely read by a very qualified and knowledgeable readership that is so highly tuned in.
Just look at our letters to the editor! I mean, wow, the level of passion there is just incredible.
I suspect fraud detection is a more serious challenge for smaller, less read, less resourced, less well curated, and perhaps open access journals - which as stated by CWombat often operate under a high pressure for speed.

 

[Radonky]

Cureus is the dregs of medical publishing - no offence to those who have found themselves in the unfavorable position of submitting their academic pollution (research) to Cureus.

 

[radiaterMike]

Why ? Their model seems noble. Open access. Free (unless you need their help in editing and formatting). Founder also developed CyberKnife

The dregs are the predatory journals that exist only to collect publishing fees.

 

[deleted1111261]

Cureus has kinks to work out, but I would favor it over others based on the model. They are at least seeking to improve the process, even if it isn’t worked out. As seen on Twitter, there is no interest from editor to work on this at this time.