Publikacje w czasopismach naukowych – nowa odsłona nieuczciwości

Skórzewska-Amberg, Małgorzata

Abstract

The review process of texts submitted for publication in scientific journals is one of the main ways of evaluating the scientific output of their authors. Any disruptions in this process can have serious and far-reaching consequences, not only in terms of the credibility and integrity of the author themselves, but – most importantly – in terms of the confidence in their achievements. Attempts to distort the review process have so far occurred most often in medical and exact sciences. The case of „The Critique of Law” discussed herein shows that attempts at scientific fraud affect also legal sciences. The purpose of the article is to inform the scientific community worldwide about subsequent attempts of unethical scholarly activities, to describe instances of malpractice, and to point out some of the possible ways to
prevent the fraud in question.

Keywords

scientific fraud (2)fake reviewer (2)fake review process (2)fake author (2)„paper mill” (1)

References

Else H., Paper-mill detector put to the test in push to stamp out fake science, „Nature” 2022, 612. [Google Scholar]
Else H., Van Noorden R., The Battle against Paper Mills, „Nature” 2021, 591, s. 516–519. [Google Scholar]
Ferguson C., Marcus A., Oransky I., Publishing: The peer-review scam, „Nature” 2014, 515, https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400 (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
https://retractionwatch.com/ (dostęp: 14.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Kaplan S., Major Publisher Retracts 64 Scientific Papers, „The Washington Post” 18.08.2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbre ak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Novak K., Fake Peer Reviews Lead to Mass Retraction of Articles, The AGA Journals Blog, 20.08.2015, https://journalsblog.gastro.org/fake-peer-reviews-lead-to-mass-retraction-of-articles/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Patel J., Who reviews the reviewers?, Research in Progress Blog, 26.11.2014, https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/11/26/who-reviews-the-reviewers/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Rousseau R., Institutional versus commercial email addresses: which one to use in your publications?, Ronald Rousseau’s Blog, 21.06.2018, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocial sciences/2018/06/21/institutional-versus-commercial-email-addresses-which-one-to-use-in-your-publications/ (dostęp: 12.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Shen S., Rousseau R., Wang D., Do papers with an institutional e-mail address receive more citations than those with a non-institutional one?, „Scientometrics” 2018, 115, s. 1039–1050. [Google Scholar]
Teixeira da Silva J.A., On the Abuse of Online Submission Systems, Fake Peer Reviews and Editor-Created Accounts, „Persona y Bioética” 2016, 20(2), dostęp przez Researchgate – https:// [Google Scholar]
www.researchgate.net/publication/311581682_On_the_abuse_of_online_submission_systems_fake_peer_reviews_and_editor-created_accounts (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Else H., Paper-mill detector put to the test in push to stamp out fake science, „Nature” 2022, 612. [Google Scholar]
Else H., Van Noorden R., The Battle against Paper Mills, „Nature” 2021, 591, s. 516–519. [Google Scholar]
Ferguson C., Marcus A., Oransky I., Publishing: The peer-review scam, „Nature” 2014, 515, https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400 (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
https://retractionwatch.com/ (dostęp: 14.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Kaplan S., Major Publisher Retracts 64 Scientific Papers, „The Washington Post” 18.08.2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbre ak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Novak K., Fake Peer Reviews Lead to Mass Retraction of Articles, The AGA Journals Blog, 20.08.2015, https://journalsblog.gastro.org/fake-peer-reviews-lead-to-mass-retraction-of-articles/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Patel J., Who reviews the reviewers?, Research in Progress Blog, 26.11.2014, https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/11/26/who-reviews-the-reviewers/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Rousseau R., Institutional versus commercial email addresses: which one to use in your publications?, Ronald Rousseau’s Blog, 21.06.2018, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocial scien- [Google Scholar]
ces/2018/06/21/institutional-versus-commercial-email-addresses-which-one-to-use-in-your-publications/ (dostęp: 12.11.2022). [Google Scholar]
Shen S., Rousseau R., Wang D., Do papers with an institutional e-mail address receive more citations than those with a non-institutional one?, „Scientometrics” 2018, 115, s. 1039–1050. [Google Scholar]
Teixeira da Silva J.A., On the Abuse of Online Submission Systems, Fake Peer Reviews and Editor-Created Accounts, „Persona y Bioética” 2016, 20(2), dostęp przez Researchgate – https:// [Google Scholar]
www.researchgate.net/publication/311581682_On_the_abuse_of_online_submission_systems_fake_peer_reviews_and_editor-created_accounts (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Skórzewska-Amberg, Małgorzata (2022). Publikacje w czasopismach naukowych – nowa odsłona nieuczciwości. (2022). Publikacje w czasopismach naukowych – nowa odsłona nieuczciwości. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, 14(4), 10-19. https://doi.org/ 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.552 (Original work published 12/2022AD)

MLA style

Skórzewska-Amberg, Małgorzata. “Publikacje W Czasopismach Naukowych – Nowa Odsłona Nieuczciwości”. 12/2022AD. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, vol. 14, no. 4, 2022, pp. 10-19.

Chicago style

Skórzewska-Amberg, Małgorzata. “Publikacje W Czasopismach Naukowych – Nowa Odsłona Nieuczciwości”. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem, 14, no. 4 (2022): 10-19. doi: 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.552.

Copyright info

CC-BY

[1] Else H., Paper-mill detector put to the test in push to stamp out fake science, „Nature” 2022, 612. [Google Scholar]

[2] Else H., Van Noorden R., The Battle against Paper Mills, „Nature” 2021, 591, s. 516–519. [Google Scholar]

[3] Ferguson C., Marcus A., Oransky I., Publishing: The peer-review scam, „Nature” 2014, 515, https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400 (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[4] https://retractionwatch.com/ (dostęp: 14.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[5] Kaplan S., Major Publisher Retracts 64 Scientific Papers, „The Washington Post” 18.08.2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbre ak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[6] Novak K., Fake Peer Reviews Lead to Mass Retraction of Articles, The AGA Journals Blog, 20.08.2015, https://journalsblog.gastro.org/fake-peer-reviews-lead-to-mass-retraction-of-articles/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[7] Patel J., Who reviews the reviewers?, Research in Progress Blog, 26.11.2014, https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/11/26/who-reviews-the-reviewers/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[8] Rousseau R., Institutional versus commercial email addresses: which one to use in your publications?, Ronald Rousseau’s Blog, 21.06.2018, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocial sciences/2018/06/21/institutional-versus-commercial-email-addresses-which-one-to-use-in-your-publications/ (dostęp: 12.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[9] Shen S., Rousseau R., Wang D., Do papers with an institutional e-mail address receive more citations than those with a non-institutional one?, „Scientometrics” 2018, 115, s. 1039–1050. [Google Scholar]

[10] Teixeira da Silva J.A., On the Abuse of Online Submission Systems, Fake Peer Reviews and Editor-Created Accounts, „Persona y Bioética” 2016, 20(2), dostęp przez Researchgate – https:// [Google Scholar]

[11] www.researchgate.net/publication/311581682_On_the_abuse_of_online_submission_systems_fake_peer_reviews_and_editor-created_accounts (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[12] Else H., Paper-mill detector put to the test in push to stamp out fake science, „Nature” 2022, 612. [Google Scholar]

[13] Else H., Van Noorden R., The Battle against Paper Mills, „Nature” 2021, 591, s. 516–519. [Google Scholar]

[14] Ferguson C., Marcus A., Oransky I., Publishing: The peer-review scam, „Nature” 2014, 515, https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400 (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[15] https://retractionwatch.com/ (dostęp: 14.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[16] Kaplan S., Major Publisher Retracts 64 Scientific Papers, „The Washington Post” 18.08.2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbre ak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[17] Novak K., Fake Peer Reviews Lead to Mass Retraction of Articles, The AGA Journals Blog, 20.08.2015, https://journalsblog.gastro.org/fake-peer-reviews-lead-to-mass-retraction-of-articles/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[18] Patel J., Who reviews the reviewers?, Research in Progress Blog, 26.11.2014, https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/11/26/who-reviews-the-reviewers/ (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[19] Rousseau R., Institutional versus commercial email addresses: which one to use in your publications?, Ronald Rousseau’s Blog, 21.06.2018, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocial scien- [Google Scholar]

[20] ces/2018/06/21/institutional-versus-commercial-email-addresses-which-one-to-use-in-your-publications/ (dostęp: 12.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

[21] Shen S., Rousseau R., Wang D., Do papers with an institutional e-mail address receive more citations than those with a non-institutional one?, „Scientometrics” 2018, 115, s. 1039–1050. [Google Scholar]

[22] Teixeira da Silva J.A., On the Abuse of Online Submission Systems, Fake Peer Reviews and Editor-Created Accounts, „Persona y Bioética” 2016, 20(2), dostęp przez Researchgate – https:// [Google Scholar]

[23] www.researchgate.net/publication/311581682_On_the_abuse_of_online_submission_systems_fake_peer_reviews_and_editor-created_accounts (dostęp: 11.11.2022). [Google Scholar]

Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem