The Science of Science Corner

The following case ultimately led to a removal of the profile of this imposter on ResearchGate. The case involved numerous creations of fake papers that ‘just’ copy the template of legit journals and then fabricate a (non-existing) combination of volume, issue nr., page nr. etc.   This leads to a Google Scholar profile like this: Unfortunately the GS profile of this imposter is still there (just search for Onipe Adabenege Yahaya).   If you look at the second best cited ‘paper’ it is not published in the mentioned journal!  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362634653_Do_CEOs_influence_earnings_management See the details: And look how bluntly the whole lay-out and fake details like received and accepted dates are generated (by AI?) that makes it misleadingly real, but it isn’t: It is all even worse since the citations for this fake paper are in most cases (if not all) are from similar type of fake/fabricated papers. See  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=...

Hijacked journal: a sad example of scientific misconduct   Although the first examples of hijacked journals are found round 2012 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_hijacking  ) the phenomenon of hijacked journals is relatively new. It basically boils down to a type of fraud where imposters ‘clone’ a journal(s) (website) and pretends to be the (open access) version of a legit and genuine journal.   One of the first websites that listed identified examples of hijacked journals  https://beallslist.net/hijacked-journals/  described the phenomenon as “Sometimes someone will create a counterfeit website that pretends to be the website of a legitimate scholarly journal. The website creators then solicit manuscript submissions for the hijacked version of the journal, pocketing the money. In some cases, the legitimate versions of the journals are only published in print form, and they may not have websites.”   Nowadays there is an excellent source with (yet) id...

PubPeer: a factchecking site of potential issues in publications Want to read what kind of comments researchers make when it comes to papers with ‘issues’?   Have a look at the great site PubPeer  https://pubpeer.com/static/about   See how researchers find examples of: -Fabrication of data -Plagiarism -Paper mill activity -AI generated texts, data and figures -Etc. I asked ChatGPT about the website PubPeer, this is what I received back: PubPeer  is a post-publication peer review platform where researchers can anonymously or openly comment on published studies. It allows the scientific community to discuss and critique research findings, often identifying errors, inconsistencies, or potential misconduct that might not have been caught during traditional peer review. I think it plays an important role in scientific accountability and transparency. Many significant issues in published papers—including image manipulation, statistical errors, and even outright fraud—have ...

The website Retraction Watch: a great source! Want to read what happens in the world of scientific publishing? More specific what goes wrong?   Have a look at the great site Retraction Watch   https://retractionwatch.com   See how researchers and publishers: -Make up plagiarised papers -Buy their way into publications by using paper mill scams -Fabricate data -Make use of identity theft -Etc. I asked ChatGPT about its 'thoughts' about the website "Retraction Watch", this is what I received back: Retraction Watch is a valuable resource for tracking retractions of scientific papers and highlighting issues in academic publishing. It plays an important role in promoting transparency, accountability, and integrity in research by documenting instances of misconduct, errors, and problematic peer review processes. The website is run by  Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus , and it's widely respected in the scientific community, though it sometimes sparks controversy when it expo...

Use of bioinformatics in education   Here another piece I posted on ResearchGate which I think is worthwhile reading  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339311520_Possible_examples_of_using_Bioinformatics_in_your_chemistry_or_biology_class In this concept I described possible examples of bioinformatics which can be used at secondary school/college level. This piece can serve as inspiration. I strongly believe that using bioinformatics will help students in getting a deeper understanding of rather abstract concepts like amino acids, peptides, proteins, secondary structure. The role of hydrophobicity in folding and binding mechanisms (and how 'we' all know this) becomes more understandable for students at this (undergraduate) level. I asked ChatGPT about this topic and this is what I got back: Bioinformatics is a powerful tool that can enhance the understanding of abstract biochemical concepts in both chemistry and biology classes. Here are some possible examples of how bi...

Predatory publishing: some observations and facts  Here another piece I posted on ResearchGate  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336059741_Predatory_journals_and_publishers_a_menace_to_science_and_society_Or_A_personal_perspective It summarised what I learned about the phenomenon "Predatory publishing" Although still highly informative there are new phenomena emerging: hijacked journals, paper mills, AI generated papers etc. I will come back to this later on in a new post... This report described some thoughts about predatory publishing as phenomenon. Although there are (too many) obvious cases of predatory behaviour it is in a number of cases not that black and white. Suggestions of how to deal with this 'grey' area are given. Last but not least the 'blacklist' approach vs the 'whitelist' approach is discussed. Unfortunately it is clear that the 'blind' believe in Scopus indexing and/or Clarivate's indices is no longer enough to en...