tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post5375661031266763798..comments2024-03-28T04:15:44.459-05:00Comments on nanoscale views: Brief items, public science outreach editionDouglas Natelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-60743539616802392112015-04-03T16:30:48.916-05:002015-04-03T16:30:48.916-05:00With respect to your second bullet point, I stumbl...With respect to your second bullet point, I stumbled on this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmf6GgjmHmU) video a little while ago, which is very much in the same vain. I was hoping that you could perhaps share it as well if you think it is worthy?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-5723743927669790522015-03-29T10:45:01.806-05:002015-03-29T10:45:01.806-05:00Anon, sure it bothers me (though it's old news...Anon, sure it bothers me (though it's old news since I regularly read <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/" rel="nofollow">Retraction Watch</a>). The issue of people (particularly in countries where incentives are strongly based on sheer numbers of publications) trying to game peer review and citation systems is depressing but not new. Attentive editors (and even some automated systems) should be able to avoid much of this.<br /><br />That being said, I'm not sure I get your tone - am I somehow obligated to write a post about this, in your view?Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-86401869756876806102015-03-28T16:34:02.465-05:002015-03-28T16:34:02.465-05:00I guess this doesn't bother you.
http://www.w...I guess this doesn't bother you.<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com