@elduvelle @albertcardona @neuralreckoning
To me this question seems to be the issue of the #eLife journal hypothesis: they are providing reviews on preprints. They are basically post-preprint review (like #PubPeer), but unlike PubPeer, they still think (at least they talk of themselves as) a journal.
I think what #eLife and #PubPeer are doing is great. But they cannot be listed in one's CV as "refereed publications" in the way that other gatekept* journals are.
... which gets at the point @jonmsterling made about separating "preprints", "refereed publications" and "titles I'm thinking about writing" (in preparation) on one's CV.
It would be interesting to see how #eLife is still being treated as a "journal" on CVs and for grants and promotion.
BTW, in an earlier discussion, we agreed that one could list eLife papers in one's CV as long as one also included the eLife assessment on one's CV. Wanna bet these authors don't? 🤔
* Yes, I know eLife is gatekept by editors, but the door is opened based on "interesting", not based on "correct". (And, yes, there is evidence that the Glam journals do that as well, but they are at least ostensibly _claiming_ to only publish papers that are "correct".)
This is very meta... essentially someone who is in the business of writing fake papers has written a fake paper criticizing Pubpeer and post publication peer review as being vulnerable to “misuse” and “hyper-skepticism.
#RetractionWatch #AcademicIntegrity #ResearchMisconduct #ScholarlyPublishing #PostPublicationReview #PubPeer #FakeScience #MetaScience #PeerReview #ScienceFraud
Tips we get about papers and books citing fake references have skyrocketed this year, tracking closely with the rise of ChatGPT and other generative large language models. One in particular hit clo…
A closer look at the PubPeer discussions involving Esam Agamy (University of Sharjah Chancellor) reveals repeated concerns about duplicated images, reused data, and lack of corrective action.
PubPeer gives scientists and readers a chance to hold the record accountable — and these threads show why institutional response and editorial transparency matter.
Read and judge for yourself 👇
🔗 https://pubpeer.com/search?q=Esam+agamy
#ResearchIntegrity #AcademicEthics #PubPeer #RetractionWatch #OpenScience
#RetractionWatch
Papers & #peerreviews with evidence of #ChatGPT writing
Retraction Watch readers have likely heard about papers showing evidence that they were written by ChatGPT. We have reported on the phenomenon.
Here’s a list — relying on a search strategy developed by #GuillaumeCabanac, who has been posting the results on #PubPeer — of such papers that we’ll keep updated regularly. We also recommend Alex Glynn’s Academ-AI. Have a suggested entry? Use this form.
https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/
Trop gros, trop cher, trop moche..., le système de publications scientifiques est à bout de souffle. Un article de "niche" pour passer un bon été :https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2025/07/07/le-monde-des-revues-scientifiques-au-bord-de-l-asphyxie_6619660_1650684.html
(allez au bout car il y a des messages d'espoirs...)
et en bonus, un "appui" sur l'usage de l'IA qui n'arrange rien,
https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2025/07/07/comment-l-ia-bouscule-les-publications-scientifiques_6619655_1650684.html
#science #preprint #recherche #pci #pubpeer #matilda #openaccess #retraction
@BorisBarbour @enroweb @ElisabethBik
Plus de trois millions d’articles sont publiés chaque année dans les revues scientifiques, les chercheurs étant incités à les multiplier pour se distinguer. Une logique économique perverse s’est installée, qui profite d’abord aux grands éditeurs et encourage les fraudes les plus inattendues. Des propositions alternatives émergent pour sauver le partage des connaissances.
🟢 Nanoparticules, macro conséquences
Cette semaine on retrace l'affaire Jolanda Spadavecchia qui aura duré quatre ans pour déboucher sur deux ans d'exclusion et 17 publications à rétracter
https://themeta.news/nanoparticules-fraudes-et-sanction-au-cnrs/
Hi #Academics,
When you read a paper in your field and disagree with something that the authors did (e.g. interpret results incorrectly) or did not do (e.g. not cite an extremely relevant paper), how do you usually react:
#Research #Academia #AcademicChatter #ScientificPublications #Pubpeer
Edited to add the Pubpeer option, you might have to vote again, sorry
Dorothy Bishop
Raphaël Lévy
Redish Lab
Nicola Romanò
DS
Ludo Max
STOPDISINFORMATION
Quark
TheMetaNews
El Duvelle