Publisher retracts 64 articles for fake peer reviews

a reply to: Klassified

Thanks for a wonderful discussion (after being away for a while, nice to speak with you again!)



And to the Op:

Great job, great discussion.. S&F

(as I also mentioned elsewhere in the forum, it was how I found this thread.. lol)

a reply to: Klassified

Most reviews are blinded anyway. I'm not sure introducing money into the refereeing is a solution, though, as it opens up a whole new can of worms. As for the refs not knowing the publication, I don't see how that would help, nor would it be practical to implement (there is no central body to organise such things). Plus, you wouldn't want any old tom, dick or harry reviewing for a prestigious journal as generally speaking, better quality journal = better quality refs thus harder to get work published due to the refs being much more on the ball regarding novelty and originality.

a reply to: and14263

The problem we have here is that often these peer reviewed papers are taken as gospel and not debated.

By whom? Other scientists in the field or random amateurs on internet forums? It matters you know.

Sorry, they are presented as gospel.

Yes that is often the case. Or to be more accurate "misrepresented as gospel".