@fake_journals This instance is a great example of how easily Google Scholar can be gamed and that those on academic or hiring panels relying on GS metrics are fools. Unethical? More like fraudulent. I scrolled through and the “articles” were preprints in AI prone fields of AI and Info theory
@Thatsregrettab1 That’s terrible that those evil mad scientists at @Bayer were putting glyphosate into vaccines! No wonder glyphosate causes cancer. I’ll bet they put it in talcum powder too. No one can prove to me they aren’t.
@maoviedogarcia@MDPIOpenAccess@Agronomy_Mdpi@Sus_MDPI@Applsci@Land_MDPI Kinda off point, but on your top left example “Image segmentation thresholding…”, Reviewer 2’s extensive summary of the paper that starts their review reads like AI.
Back to Jan Turan- I don’t get it. Why bother doing lots of cursory reviews?
@Spottingthespot@hkust@ElsevierConnect@DanTsang_HKUST How do you produce these plots, please? Is this pulling from Publons? Internal Elsevier info? If I’m reading this right,Tsang is completing >100 reviews/year, with hundreds of invitations at multiple journals? A very enthusiastic reviewer!
@USGS_Idaho@AWRAHQ Bobberology hydrology! How to make pretty OK streamflow measurements with fishing bobbers, oranges, and more in case one doesn’t have a $7K acoustic velocity flow rod in their backseat.
By the way, Monday's flow looks like a new all-time record at our Lake Fork streamgage. Other than 2010 when the Browns Pond dam failed, the previous record streamflow was 2,770 cfs recorded on June 21, 1971. This week's data are still provisional until our hydro techs review.
@sTeamTraen Editors complain about how hard it is to find reviewers and then burn good reviewers with bullshit like that. Name and shame. I’d black ball reviewing for that journal.
@AbalkinaAnna@SmutClyde@RetractionWatch@joelving@ScienceMagazine Doesn’t being on the PLoS One editorial board just mean he is (was) one of their 10,752 editors? It seems an unwieldy editorial model to maintain quality -10K editors for 15K articles/yr, overseen by ~95 section editors.
@StephenBHeard “Seldom original. Often wrong. Occasionally interesting.” I filed that blog post under ‘all three.’ Rephrasing the same methods just a little just not to ‘self-plagiarize’ always struck me as illogical. Clarity, brevity, and a citation to the original.
@RetractionWatch Nature article comes with a fake looking labby stock photo of young women looking sciencey. @MicrobiomDigest has a great collection of these, https://t.co/InMXJ2nImq
@RetractionWatch And then there’s Mark Z Jacobson who decided suing was the appropriate response to an article criticizing his article https://t.co/Tm4AmTOWqx
@Y_IWSK @etc_editor Thanks! It was fun and hard to think what recovery from pollution events even means - to organisms that survive, to populations, and aquatic communities.
@ni_shunawhiter@gcabanac Did your doppelgänger cite any particular exalted authors extensively? Citation farming in addition to seeding the journal with legit looking articles?