News Peer review

Fake peer reviews: Missing fairly obvious clues

Spread the love

File:FileStack.jpg
What’s hot? What’s not?/Niklas Bildhauer, Wikimedia
From Retraction Watch:

The editors of a journal that recently retracted a paper after the peer-review process was “compromised” have published the fake reviews, along with additional details about the case.

In the editorial titled “Organised crime against the academic peer review system,” Adam Cohen and other editors at the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology say they missed “several fairly obvious clues that should have set alarm bells ringing.” For instance, the glowing reviews from supposed high-profile researchers at Ivy League institutions were returned within a few days, were riddled with grammar problems, and the authors had no previous publications.

The case is one of many we’ve recently seen in which papers are pulled due to actions of a third party.

Oh right.

Action item for fraudsters: This is Hire-an-editor Month.

On the other hand, take heart: Thanks to groups like Retraction Watch, it’s getting harder to keep a job in science if all one is marketing is dumb/dumber

See also: Non-evidence-based science strikes again

Leave a Reply