Editors with multiple retractions, but who serve on journal editorial boards: Case studies

Teixeira da Silva, Jaime Α.; Vuong, Quan-Hoang

doi:10.12681/eml.33935

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, respectable scientists might not wish to be cited in papers published in predatory journals, papers with fabricated authors, or sting papers containing falsified elements that employ unethical tactics. According to Teixeira da Silva & Vuong (2021, 2023b, the ability to have an equal right on any two sides of any argument or situation, including those related to the right to cite a paper, or to not cite a paper, or even to be cited, or to not want to be cited, is a fundamental right. However, RTBF does not provide any clause in which authors can require owners of citation databases to remove this citation information.…”

Section: Rtbf and Open Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Can the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ be applied to academic publishing? Probe from the perspective of personal rights, archival science, open science and post‐publication peer review

Teixeira da Silva,

Nazarovets

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we reflect on how the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ (RTBF), specifically the right to erasure as enshrined in Article 17 (and to some extent Art. 19 and Art. 21) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR; Regulation (EU) 2016/679), or the right to delete undesirable, unflattering or reputation‐damaging archived records of oneself from search engines or databases, might apply to academic publishing. In particular, we focus on archival (library and information) science, post‐publication peer review, and reflect on whether RTBF is compatible with open science principles. Even though RTBF became enshrined in EU law in 2018, its trans‐Atlantic export to the United States faces resistance because it is seen as being incompatible with First Amendment rights. We ponder the pertinence of the debate regarding local versus global applicability of RTBF when considering the transnational nature of some collaborative research. Although RTBF applies broadly to search engines such as Google, we question whether authors have this right and also whether publishers are subjected to this law with respect to science databases, or even ‘local’ (i.e., publisher‐controlled) archives, especially in the light of retractions or withdrawals, in which data and files are removed from a preprint or journal's website or, in extreme cases, where all or most bibliometric information is scrubbed clean, as in the case of ‘silent retractions’. We extend our reflections further to appreciate whether authors or editors are entitled to RTBF in extreme instances of misconduct or fraud. The fundamental right to privacy and personal choice, as is suggested by (or enshrined in) RTBF, is not—in our view—compatible with several principles related to the integrity of data and information, or even their preservation, and may be diametrically opposed, depending on the situation. We encourage wider debate on this budding pertinent issue as a fundamental aspect of academic rights and freedoms.

show abstract

Section: Rtbf and Open Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Can the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ be applied to academic publishing? Probe from the perspective of personal rights, archival science, open science and post‐publication peer review

Teixeira da Silva,

Nazarovets

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Недавно также было отмечено, что журналы, которые приглашают в свои редакционные советы ученых, замеченных в неправомерном поведении или чьи статьи неоднократно отзывались, рискуют нанести ущерб своей репутации [72]. Является ли наличие в членах редколлегии ученых, чьи работы неоднократно отзывались за совершение этических нарушений, признаком «хищнического» журнала [73]? Будут ли права выбора авторов и редакторов уважаться и защищаться [74], или PJREP будет навязано всем принудительно 12 , игнорируя неотъемлемую свободу выбора, которую имеет научный автор при выборе места публикации своей работы или при выборе литературы, которую он желает процитировать?…”

Section: заключение и ограниченияunclassified

A reflection on Springer Nature’s current editorial policies related to “predatory” journals and references

Teixeira da Silva

2023

Naučnyj redaktor i izdatelʹ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its prominent position as one of the leading for-profit scholarly publishers of subscription and open access (OA) journals, and its membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), Springer Nature can be criticized for taking a vague approach in its editorial policies pertaining to “predatory” publishing. While cautioning authors and/or editors about the citation of papers that are published in “predatory” journals, the advice presented in the policies itself is flawed due its limitation to OA journals – thus apparently excluding the possibility that subscription journals might also be “predatory” and failing to specify precisely which journals authors and editors should be careful of, i.e., no source for the “predatory” definition of OA journals is indicated. Moreover, this vague set of policies does not have a publication date, nor is any authorship specified. The opacity of these aspects of these editorial policies limits their usefulness and weakens their objectives, namely in ostensibly offering scholarly advice to protect editors and authors. I argue that the Springer Nature policies pertaining to “predatory” publishing as they currently stand are not useful, and if left unchanged, can be a source of confusion or error for authors and editors of Springer Nature journals. In this connection, the identified risk is that if the poor advice indicated in those policies is heeded, it may encourage abuse, insults and/or indiscriminate profiling of academics, including those associated with Springer Nature journals. While assuming Springer Nature’s genuine intention to alert editors and authors against citing papers published in suspect scholarly venues, I argue that this editorial set of policies should either be rewritten to rely on clearer parameters, including a definitive list of journals for which “predatory” criteria have been defined, or abandoned as they are overly broad. The criticism is aimed at stimulating a discussion among other editors and publishers, especially COPE members.

show abstract

Retractions as a Bitter Pill Corrective Measure to Eliminate Flawed Science

Joshi,

Minirani

2024

Scientific Publishing Ecosystem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Editors with multiple retractions, but who serve on journal editorial boards: Case studies

Cited by 3 publications

References 14 publications

Can the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ be applied to academic publishing? Probe from the perspective of personal rights, archival science, open science and post‐publication peer review

Can the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ be applied to academic publishing? Probe from the perspective of personal rights, archival science, open science and post‐publication peer review

A reflection on Springer Nature’s current editorial policies related to “predatory” journals and references

Retractions as a Bitter Pill Corrective Measure to Eliminate Flawed Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About