Organised crime against the academic peer review system

“…They were all surprised by the emails, because none of them had heard of the paper in question. The explanation: when the authors submitted their manuscript, they had provided fake email addresses for their suggested reviewers, and submitted forged reviews of their own paper 5 (Cohen et al, 2016).…”

Section: A Brief Interlude On Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five models of science, illustrating how selection shapes methods

Smaldino¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science involves both theory building and fact finding. This chapter focuses on the fact- finding aspect. In this sense, science can be viewed as a process of signal detection for facts. We wish to discover true associations between variables. However, our methods for measurement are imprecise. We sometimes mistake noise for signal, and vice versa. How we conceptualize the scientific enterprise shapes how we go about the business of conducting research as well as how we strive to improve scientific practices. In this chapter, I’ll present several models of science. I’ll begin by showing ways in which the classic “hypothesis testing” model of science is misleading, and leads to flawed inferences. As a remedy, I’ll discuss models that treat science as a population process, with important dynamics at the group level that trickle down to the individual practitioners. Science that is robust and reproducible depends on understanding these dynamics so that institutional programs for improvement can specifically target them.

show abstract

“…Accordingly, review as the assessment is purely an academic activity. It becomes quintessential to see in what respect this activity is compromised under the guise of marketisation 2 of higher education today because in all cases it costs time (Cohen et al, 2016;Roberts, 2016;Xia et al, 2015), in most of the cases it costs money (Beall, 2016;Xia, 2015), and in some of the cases, it also costs life.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Assessment of Marketisation of ‘Review’ Through Literature

Chandakar

Chen

2020

JSSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This exploratory qualitative study based on multiple-case studies collects reviewers' comments using a 'vector manuscript' that carries 5 obvious mistakes for assessment. On the basis of the synthesized guidelines prescribed for the reviewers, these comments are measured and assessed. The assessment of the collected review comments of conferences, international journals, and that of the institutional level (N=126), suggests that the elements of negligence and marketisation have already infused in the academics of review. Those who were more oriented towards money were found to be 6.9 times more threatening in comparison to those who were not money-oriented. In this study, at the institutional level, those accepting gifts from the student before reviewing the paper are coded as asking for money.

show abstract

Organised crime against the academic peer review system

Cited by 25 publications

References 3 publications

Analysis of retracted articles on medicines administered to humans

Analysis of retracted articles on medicines administered to humans

Five models of science, illustrating how selection shapes methods

An Assessment of Marketisation of ‘Review’ Through Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About