“Perhaps the only solution [to the recycling of leaked exams and one kind of student cheating] is to require professors to post every test online, creating a university-wide test bank. It’s an extreme solution to a simple problem, but it’s the easiest way to ensure students aren’t using test files to cheat. …”
“Pisanski and three colleagues concocted the fake application—supported by a cover letter, a CV boasting phoney degrees, and a list of non-existent book chapters — and sent it to 360 peer-reviewed social science publications.
In the peer-review process, journals ask outside experts to assess the methodology and importance of submissions before accepting then.
The journals were drawn equally from three directories: one listing reputable titles available through subscriptions, with a second devoted to ‘open access’ publications.
The third was a blacklist — compiled by University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall — of known or suspected ‘predatory journals’ that make money by extracting fees from authors.
The number of these highly dubious publications has exploded in recent years, number at least 10,000.
Indeed, 40 of the 48 journals that took the bait and offered a position to the fictitious Anna O. figured on Beall’s list, which has since been taken offline.
The other eight were from the open-access registry. No one made any attempt to contact the university listed on the fake CV, and few probed her obviously spotty experience.
One journal suggested ‘Ms Fraud’ organise a conference after which presenters would be charged for a special issue.
‘Predatory publishing is becoming an organised industry’, said Pisanski, who decided not to name-and-shame the journals caught out by the sting.
Their rise ‘threatens the quality of scholarship’, she added.
Even after the researchers contacted all the journals to inform them that Anna O. Szust did not really exist, her name continued to appear on the editorial board of 11 — including one to which she had not even applied.
None of the journals from the most select directory fell in the trap, and a few sent back tartly worded answers.”
“The solution to the scientific reproducibility crisis is to move towards Open Research – the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as it is practical in the discovery process. We need to reward the publication of research outputs along the entire process, rather than just each journal article as it is published.”
“Some recent communications from companies involved in academic publishing have some journal representatives worried. In one instance, a manuscript editing company offered to pay an editor to help its papers get published in his journal; in another, a research ethics company threatened to investigate all of an author’s papers if he or she didn’t donate thousands to support the company’s efforts. Bottom line: Research authors (and editors) should beware companies offering unethical manuscript editing and other publishing services. Below are examples (which we’ve verified) compiled by Chris Graf, Co-Vice Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Society Partnership Director at Wiley; Richard Holt, editor-in-chief of Diabetic Medicine and researcher at the University of Southampton; Tamara Welschot, the Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Services at Springer Nature; and Matt Hodgkinson, Head of Research Integrity, Hindawi Limited.”
“The earliest report to our knowledge of publishers charging to re-use open access content, was by palaeontologist and renowned advocate for open access Mike Taylor who observed in 2012 that Elsevier were charging for non-commercial, educational re-use of Creative Commons Attribution licensed ‘open access’ articles.
The journal involved was Neuron.
You can read the full text of Mike’s report here: https://svpow.com/2012/03/21/pay-to-download-elseviers-open-access-articles/
If you know of any earlier reports please do let us know. This is important history to document. We would like this website to be the ultimate one-stop-shop evidence dossier for the continuously-repeated failings of academic publishers.”
“Paywall Watch is a website dedicated to monitoring and documenting notable problems at academic publishers.
TL;DR we are like Retraction Watch, but we focus on fraud and incompetent errors made by academic publishers.
Unlike most multi-billion dollar industries there is virtually no regulation in the academic publishing market. Publishers can get away with seemingly anything. Poor service, poor ethics, and outrageous prices are a common feature of the market. We hope the aggregation of content on this website will empower funders, authors, readers, subscribers, research institutes and libraries to make better choices in future when it comes to entrusting scholarly research outputs with digital service providers….”
“Soon after Peter Murray-Rust had noted that Elsevier and RightsLink were selling permissions to re-use ‘open access’ content, he blogged about Springer and RightsLink doing the same thing too.
In August 2013, Peter wrote a blog post entitled Springer charge academics for using CC-NC ‘Open Access’ in lectures.
The price set by Springer and RightsLink to re-use 2 figures from a single ‘open access’ paper in classroom materials was an eye-watering $151.80.
The journal involved was Drugs in R&D. “
“Statcheck had read some 50,000 published psychology papers and checked the maths behind every statistical result it encountered. In the space of 24 hours, virtually every academic active in the field in the past two decades had received an email from the program, informing them that their work had been reviewed. Nothing like this had ever been seen before: a massive, open, retroactive evaluation of scientific literature, conducted entirely by computer….”