Let those dogs slip James. Look forward to it. I often wonder if some free-for-all-type journal couldn’t be worse than the system we have, with literally anyone able to do an open review and place a vote such as “completely robust” or “absolute pigswill”. Maybe it could even be better, for a number of reasons.
"Were there any hard-hitting investigative pieces on the biggest screwup in academic publishing history?"
James, whatever you think of me, this is disrespectful towards my colleagues whose investigative work not just reported but actually caused all those 11k retractions at Hindawi.
You know about Smut Clyde's and Parashorea tomentella's articles. on For Better Science. Why do you write things like the above then?
There is a repeated parallel phenomenon of private label research going on in these paper mills which is infesting business and other discussions.
An example is if you follow “trans” the discussion that it is a “Multi-Billion Dollar|$5 Billion Market by 2025” (or name a date) which is frequently repeated by writers on Substack. When asked to substantiate, they point to dubious “research firms” which respond to any query on trans market with similar output, then tell you to buy the report, citing sources with real names.
A number of “research firms” with similar websites will provide any number of different reports with the same structure, and outcomes.
Trans currently is perhaps a $120M billed market over the last 5 years or so, from verified anonymized insurance data. The actual achieved revenue is closer to $3.6-$4.2 million, which is not close to $5B by three orders of magnitude.
This data is flowing from these paper mills everywhere not just academic journals.
What, if any, are the obligations of a non-profit institution that manages grant funds and donations to maintain their fiduciary responsibilities for promoting the best (idea/personnel/impactful research) amongst their core faculty?
What measures are in place for such oversight? (The NIH just released an "Integrity" statement that seems toothless/headless.
That's a very complicated question. Each individual university or research institute has their own policies, a set of local laws, and some version of government oversight. How that overlaps with the 'best' work is like asking 'how long is a piece of string?'
Let those dogs slip James. Look forward to it. I often wonder if some free-for-all-type journal couldn’t be worse than the system we have, with literally anyone able to do an open review and place a vote such as “completely robust” or “absolute pigswill”. Maybe it could even be better, for a number of reasons.
"Were there any hard-hitting investigative pieces on the biggest screwup in academic publishing history?"
James, whatever you think of me, this is disrespectful towards my colleagues whose investigative work not just reported but actually caused all those 11k retractions at Hindawi.
You know about Smut Clyde's and Parashorea tomentella's articles. on For Better Science. Why do you write things like the above then?
https://forbetterscience.com/2022/09/05/cyclotron-branch-before-the-fall/
https://forbetterscience.com/2023/01/03/hindawi-garbage-sorting-system-based-on-citations/
But I rather suspect you will not allow this comment ton your blog.
There is a repeated parallel phenomenon of private label research going on in these paper mills which is infesting business and other discussions.
An example is if you follow “trans” the discussion that it is a “Multi-Billion Dollar|$5 Billion Market by 2025” (or name a date) which is frequently repeated by writers on Substack. When asked to substantiate, they point to dubious “research firms” which respond to any query on trans market with similar output, then tell you to buy the report, citing sources with real names.
A number of “research firms” with similar websites will provide any number of different reports with the same structure, and outcomes.
Trans currently is perhaps a $120M billed market over the last 5 years or so, from verified anonymized insurance data. The actual achieved revenue is closer to $3.6-$4.2 million, which is not close to $5B by three orders of magnitude.
This data is flowing from these paper mills everywhere not just academic journals.
Very enlightening. Financial leads can help.
What, if any, are the obligations of a non-profit institution that manages grant funds and donations to maintain their fiduciary responsibilities for promoting the best (idea/personnel/impactful research) amongst their core faculty?
What measures are in place for such oversight? (The NIH just released an "Integrity" statement that seems toothless/headless.
That's a very complicated question. Each individual university or research institute has their own policies, a set of local laws, and some version of government oversight. How that overlaps with the 'best' work is like asking 'how long is a piece of string?'
But that’s exactly what’s advertised to both the public and to government officials.
That’s a lot of power to University Administrators and Administrative Officials. A corruptive power.