Retraction Watch reports:
This is officially becoming a trend: Springer is pulling another 64 articles from 10 journals after finding evidence of faked peer reviews, bringing the total number of retractions from the phenomenon north of 230.
Given that there have been about 1,500 papers retracted overall since 2012, when we first reported on the phenomenon, faked reviews have been responsible for about 15% of all retractions in the past three years.
This isn’t the first time Springer has faced the issue. As owner of the BioMed Central journals, it issued 43 retractions for faked reviews earlier this year.
In a statement, the publisher explains how the latest round of retractions came to light:More.
Is this, like, click farms for science?
The point is that creationists and social critics who decry science as dogmatic obedience to authority and an old-boys network of closed-minded fogies are simply mistaken. Science is in constant flux, theories are batted about by the ever shifting winds of evidence, and scientists really do change their minds.
Of course, I could be wrong…
He is, as a matter of fact, wrong, but not likely to learn from the experience, one fears.
Science is as likely a home for fraud as any other enterprise. All enterprises that are not constantly monitored grow fraud the way the back side of a shelving unit collects dust bunnies.
That’s why Retraction Watch is such a welcome development.
See also: If peer review is working, why all the retractions?
Follow UD News at Twitter!