ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2019
Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Retracted Publications on Methotrexate.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Article
- Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Employing Unprofessional Editors for Handling Submissions in Scholarly Journals.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- [Authorship and Inappropriate Authorship from an Ethical Publication Perspective].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2022Review
- Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health.BMC veterinary research · 2022Article
- Spousal and Kinship Co-Authorship Should be Declared to Avoid Conflicts of Interest.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2021Article
- Is there a need for creators of imaginary authors to face legal consequences?Croatian medical journal · 2020Article
- Reporting Survey Based Studies - a Primer for Authors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Review
- Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method.PloS one · 2019Article
- Prolific authors in ophthalmology and vision science.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inappropriate authorship and other fraudulent publication strategies are pervasive. Here, I deal with contribution disclosures, authorship disputes versus plagiarism among collaborators, kin co-authorship, gender bias, authorship trade, and fake peer review (FPR). In contrast to underserved authorship and other ubiquitous malpractices, authorship trade and FPR appear to concentrate in some Asian countries that exhibit a mixed academic pattern of rapid growth and poor ethics. It seems that strong pressures to publish coupled with the incessantly growing number of publications entail a lower quality of published science in part attributable to a poor, compromised or even absent (in predatory journals) peer review. In this regard, the commitment of Publons to strengthen this fundamental process and ultimately ensure the quality and integrity of the published articles is laudable. Because the many recommendations for adherence to authorship guidelines and rules of honest and transparent research reporting have been rather ineffective, strong deterrents should be established to end manipulated peer review, undeserved authorship, and related fakeries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.