Prominent journal editor fired for endorsing satirical article about Israel-Hamas conflict; Science, October 24, 2023

SCIENCE NEWS STAFF, Science; Prominent journal editor fired for endorsing satirical article about Israel-Hamas conflict

"Michael Eisen, editor-in-chief of the prominent open access journal eLife and a longtime critic of traditional journals, says he is losing that job for publicly endorsing a satirical article that criticized people dying in Gaza for not condemning the recent attacks on Israel by the Palestinian group Hamas...

Eisen has previously been a frequent, feisty participant in debates about scientific publishing, doggedly supporting the development of free access to journal articles. In 2003, he co-founded the Public Library of Science (PLOS), whose journal PLOS ONE grew to become one of the largest open-access journals. Authors pay a fee so that their articles in PLOS journals are free to read when published. Eisen has criticized the paywalls still in place at many subscription journals as slowing the progress of science and the diffusion of useful findings. But critics of PLOS’s model have suggested author fees create an incentive for journals to maximize the number of papers published at the expense of adequate peer review and quality and can create barriers for authors with limited resources."

A Revolution in Science Publishing, or Business as Usual?; UNDARK, March 30, 2020

Michael Schulson, UNDARK; A Revolution in Science Publishing, or Business as Usual?

"Some advocates see corporate open-access as a pragmatic way of opening up research to the masses. But others see the new model as a corruption of the original vision — one that will continue to funnel billions of dollars into big publishing companies, marginalize scientists in lower income countries, and fail to fix deeper, systemic problems in scientific publishing.

As it stands, all trends point to an open-access future. The question now is what kind of open-access model it will be — and what that future may mean for the way new science gets evaluated, published, and shared. “We don’t know why we should accept that open access is a market,” said Dominique Babini, the open-access adviser to the Latin American Council of Social Sciences and a prominent critic of commercial open-access models. “If knowledge is a human right, why can’t we manage it as a commons, in collaborative ways managed by the academic community, not by for-profit initiatives?”"

Canadian Medical Association leaves international group after president plagiarizes past president’s speech; Retraction Watch, October 8, 2018

Retraction Watch; Canadian Medical Association leaves international group after president plagiarizes past president’s speech

 

[Kip Currier: Quick question: How do you know if the scientific papers you're reading, and perhaps relying upon, represent "good" science or have been discredited? Enter Retraction Watch.

While working on a Research Misconduct chapter for my ethics textbook, I was reminded of Retraction Watch from one of my Information Ethics course's lectures. Retraction Watch is a project of its parent organization, The Center for Scientific Integrity, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, supported by grants like the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

The Mission of The Center for Scientific Integrity is "to promote transparency and integrity in science and scientific publishing, and to disseminate best practices and increase efficiency in science."

One of the Center's 4 goals is a freely accessible "database of retractions, expressions of concern and related publishing events, generated by the work of Retraction Watch."

Exploring some of the content areas on the Retraction Watch site, I was enticed to check out the so-called "Retraction Watch Leaderboard"--billed by Retraction Watch as their "unofficial list" ranking individuals by the number of papers that have been retracted. Not a list one wants to make! An interesting gender-based observation by Retraction Watch, which bears further study and elucidation:

"We note that all of the top 30 are men, which agrees with the general findings of a 2013 paper suggesting that men are more likely to have papers retracted for fraud."

Another good-to-know-about section of Retraction Watch is its "Top 10 Most Highly Cited Retracted Papers"...Here's looking at you, Andrew Wakefield--still "in the house", presently at #2, for your 1998 invalidated autism/vaccines paper co-authored with 12 other researchers (!), not retracted until 12 years later in 2010 (!), and, as of October 9, 2018, cited 499 times after retraction (!):

"Ever curious which retracted papers have been most cited by other scientists? Below, we present the list of the 10 most highly cited retractions. Readers will see some familiar entries, such as the infamous Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield that originally suggested a link between autism and childhood vaccines. You’ll note that many papers — including the #1 most cited paper — received more citations after they were retracted, which research has shown is an ongoing problem."

Retraction Watch also reports examples of plagiarism, as evinced by this October 8, 2018 story about the incoming World Medical Association (WMA) President, Leonid Eidelman, delivering a speech that was, allegedly, a "mashup" of remarks from the 2014 past WMA President's speech to the WMA, an MIT press release, and a telemedicine company's website. Quite a patchwork quilt of "creative" unattributed sourcing. Canadian Medical Association leaves international group after president plagiarizes past president’s speech."]

Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free; The Guardian, September 13, 2018

George Monbiot, The Guardian; Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free

"Never underestimate the power of one determined person. What Carole Cadwalladr has done to Facebook and big data, and Edward Snowden has done to the state security complex, the young Kazakhstani scientist Alexandra Elbakyan has done to the multibillion-dollar industry that traps knowledge behind paywalls. Sci-Hub, her pirate web scraper service, has done more than any government to tackle one of the biggest rip-offs of the modern era: the capture of publicly funded research that should belong to us all. Everyone should be free to learn; knowledge should be disseminated as widely as possible. No one would publicly disagree with these sentiments. Yet governments and universities have allowed the big academic publishers to deny these rights. Academic publishing might sound like an obscure and fusty affair, but it uses one of the most ruthless and profitable business models of any industry."

Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?; Guardian, June 27, 2017

Stephen Buranyi, Guardian; Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

"The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.

Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.

Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now."