[新聞] 鬆散的審查程序造成SAGE撤回60篇論文

看板AfterPhD作者flashegg (閃光蛋)時間10年前 (2014/07/14 18:06)推噓4(4推 0噓 3→)

留言7則, 6人參與討論串1/1

與其國內報導都在蔣是否有掛名這件事上鑽牛角尖這篇ScienceInsider的報導倒是比較詳細的描述整件事的來龍去脈全文請見網址：http://ppt.cc/wHjC 以下為內文摘錄及簡單翻譯，若有誤請指正： Lax reviewing practice prompts 60 retractions at SAGE journal 鬆散的審查程序造成SAGE旗下期刊撤回60篇論文 “An author (later confirmed to be an innocent party) contacted SAGE after receiving two suspicious e-mails from individuals related to a paper he had submitted to JVC.”The senders claimed to be university-based scientists but were using Google Gmail accounts. By directly contacting the scientists via their official university e-mail accounts, SAGE investigators discovered that the identity of at least one of the scientists had been stolen—that researcher did not have a Gmail account. (SAGE is not revealing the names of the people involved.) 一位投稿者聯絡SAGE，收到兩封來自個人的可疑email，投稿者質疑在大專院校任職的學者怎麼會使用Gmail做為聯絡帳號？SAGE直接透過官方的學校email聯絡學者，發現有一位以上的學者被竊取了身份，且這些學者並未使用Gmail帳號 (SAGE沒有公佈被竊取身份的學者名單)。 (這裡解答了一個問題：CY Chen並非無中生有開分身，而是冒名該領域其他學者，並填上自己申請的不同Gmail帳號，JVC才會同意以這些人做為reviewer) Over the rest of 2013, SAGE investigators quietly followed the trail. They discovered that the assumed identity and Gmail accounts had been used many other times in ScholarOne, SAGE’s online manuscript submission system, and the reviewers and co-authors for those papers were also attached to suspicious e-mail addresses. Sherman says. “We also checked the wording of reviews written by those individuals, as well as the time it took to complete the review,” he says, which in some cases amounted to “a few minutes.” SAGE在他們的線上投稿系統，同樣發現了一些論文的reviewers和co-authors使用這些可疑的email帳號做為聯絡，並且發現有些由這些帳號所發出的審查意見甚至在幾分鐘內就回覆。 (CY Chen只能說偷吃也不擦乾淨嘴巴，幾分鐘就送回審查意見不就表示連論文內容都沒看) By the end of the year, the investigators had a list of 130 e-mail addresses associated with 60 papers, with one scientist as co-author on all of them: Chen-Yuan Chen of NPUE, who goes by “Peter.” When SAGE sent an e-mail to all 130 e-mail addresses requesting that the authors confirm their identity, none responded. “The authors were contacted again by SAGE in May 2014 to inform them that their papers would be retracted in the July 2014 issue,” says Sherman, but again none responded. According to SAGE’s official statement, Chen resigned from NPUE in February. Neither Chen nor officials at NPUE responded to e-mails from ScienceInsider. 調查團隊列出了130個可疑的email與60篇論文相關，並指向了一位學者在所有文章中都列為共同作者：在台灣屏教大任職的CY Chen。當SAGE email給這130個帳號確認身份，沒有得到任何回音，接著SAGE又在2014五月告訴這些帳號說他們投稿的論文將被撤回，依然沒有得到任何回音。Chen已在二月辭職，截至目前為止，ScienceInsider email給 Chen和屏教大都沒有得到回覆。 How was it possible for a scientist to become the sole reviewer on dozens of his own papers? The answer appears to be that Chen was allowed to nominate his own reviewers, who were not vetted by JVC. 整件事情會發生是因為Chen可以自我推薦審稿人，且沒有經過JVC把關。 “It is a very common practice across the industry for peer-reviewed journals to allow authors to nominate suggested reviewers. … Editors often find the recommendations helpful, especially for submissions on specialized and niche areas of research.” 讓投稿者自我推薦審稿人是一個十分常見的程序，尤其是在一些較為冷僻的領域，編輯通常會認為這樣的推薦是很有幫助的。 The lack of vetting, however, meant that JVC violated SAGE’s editorial guidelines, Sherman says. (Like SAGE, the editorial policy at Science is to allow authors to recommend reviewers but to never rely solely upon them. 但JVC毫無把關的行為顯然違反了SAGE的編審規範，雖然允許作者自行推薦審稿人，但不應該完全依賴作者自己的推薦。 Nayfeh has resigned as editor of JVC, which is now being run by a group of 30 editors, most of whom were associate or advisory editors. Nayfeh did not respond to e-mails. The secretary of his university department told Science that he had moved to Jordan. 主編Nayfeh已經辭去了JVC的職務，也並未回覆ScienceInsider的email，Nayfeh任教學校的秘書說他已經搬去約旦了。 (最後一段有點好笑，感覺主編Nayfeh逃之夭夭) -- ※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/AfterPhD/M.1405332412.A.7BD.html ※ 編輯: flashegg (118.169.210.110), 07/14/2014 18:12:01

→

blence

07/14 18:15, , 1^F

07/14 18:15, 1^F

推

tainanuser

07/14 19:02, , 2^F

07/14 19:02, 2^F

推

jubilee

07/14 21:11, , 3^F

07/14 21:11, 3^F