Skip to content

Category: Scholarly Publishing

Published on
Welcome!
Photo by Nico Smit on Unsplash

From all of us here at Himmelfarb Library, we’d like to welcome all new residents, fellows, physician assistants, and students! We are excited that you’re here and we look forward to serving you during this phase of your medical or health sciences training. We know the beginning of any journey can be daunting, so we’d like to make it easier for you to familiarize yourself with Himmelfarb Library and help you get to know us a bit.

To help you get your bearings, here’s a short, video tour of the library.

Resources for Residents & Fellows:

Himmelfarb has numerous resources to help new residents and fellows navigate this new stage of your training. Our Residents and Fellows Guide is filled with helpful information about how to access Himmelfarb’s resources from the GW Hospital and other off-campus locations. Links to our most popular clinical resources including DynaMed, ClinicalKey, Lexicomp, and PubMed are also available in this guide. The guide also provides links to specific program resources, so you can easily find resources geared towards your specialization.

NEJM Resident 360 is available! Start by creating your free personal account using your GW email address (GWemail@gwu.edu). After creating your account, access the resource through the library or directly through NEJM Resident 360. This resource contains interactive cases, videos, rotation prep materials, clinical pearls, morning reports, and more!

Do you want to use our resources from your mobile device? Check out our App Shelf to download apps to selected resources and make Himmelfarb’s resources even more easily accessible. To learn more about GW University and GW Hospital wireless access, accessing your GW email, and GW Hospital clinical systems, visit the Wireless and Clinical Systems Guide.

Himmelfarb Resources Available 24/7 from Anywhere!

Himmelfarb’s 125+ databases, 6,500+ journals, and 6,700+ ebooks are available 24/7 from anywhere! For seamless access to full-text articles available from our collection, install the LibKey Nomad browser extension. Use the Read by QxMD app and website to keep up with published research in your specialty. When accessing our resources remotely, we encourage you to use the GW VPN. You can find directions on how to install the VPN on our off-campus access page. If you need help troubleshooting an access issue, don’t hesitate to reach out to us (himmsubs@gwu.edu).

Need Research Help? 

Getting help with your research is a breeze at Himmelfarb! Our knowledgeable reference librarians are available to help answer your questions both in person at our reference desk or remotely. Our Ask a Librarian service connects you directly with our reference and research staff! Need help with a systematic review? Consider using our Systematic Review Service for help developing a search strategy, finding relevant articles, and organizing your search results. 

Tutorials, Guides, and More!

As you get settled into this new chapter of your medicine and health sciences journey, don’t forget that Himmelfarb has more to offer than just databases, journals, and books. We have a wealth of research guides that can connect you with resources on a variety of topics. Do you need help navigating the publishing landscape? Check out our Early Career Researchers, Scholarly Publishing, Predatory Publishing, and Measuring Scholarly Impact guides and our Scholarly Communications webinars and short tutorials. We also have a large selection of tutorials on a wide range of topics. 

Connect with us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube for the latest Himmelfarb news and updates. 

We look forward to serving you! Welcome to the GW community!

Published on
Loaded dice image by Candace McDaniel on Negative Space
Image by Candace McDaniel on Negative Space

In a 1955 Science article, Eugene Garfield proposed a citation index for the sciences (Garfield, 1955). The purpose was to make it easier to see which works cited or criticized a research paper, enabling researchers to find both frequently cited works and those that had flaws. The idea was that this would root out bad research and elevate that which had merit.

The first Science Citation Index was published in 1964. The indexes quickly became a staple tool for science and social science researchers, existing in print for decades and then going online and evolving into the present day Web of Science database. Researchers and faculty members in the sciences are now very cognizant of their h-index factor, a measure of the relevancy of their published works based on citation counts (this site explains how to calculate your h-index and the difference between Google Scholar’s and WOS indexes). Similarly the Journal Impact Factor emerged as a way to calculate the relevance of a scientific journal. Publishing in a high impact factor journal means more prestige for the author and the journal impact factor is a measure that librarians frequently use to make subscription decisions.

Some publishers and researchers have figured out ways to game the system over the years. Puffing up your h-index factor can win you grants and tenure. Similarly, inflating a journal’s impact factor means it will attract top researchers who want to publish their findings in it, as well as more subscriptions and revenue.

In 2013, Nature revealed a group of Brazilian journals had arranged to cite works from each other’s publications in a citation stacking scheme (Van Noorden, 2013). Journals have also found ways to manipulate impact factors by exploiting the types of content published. A recent analysis of the British Journal of Sports Medicine which had a sudden rise in impact factor found that there was a corresponding “exponential rise” in editorials published (Heathers, 2022). Publishing a large number of small citable items, like editorials, can boost impact factors due to the way they are calculated and this worked for BJSM, making it the top ranked sports medicine journal. Publishers also game the calendar by publishing items digitally and allowing them to accumulate citations before giving them an official publication date or “front loading” by publishing more research early in the year to accumulate additional citations when the impact factor calculation is run at the end of the year.

Richard Phelps at Retraction Watch recently wrote a brief article on citation cartels. Established scholars in a field cite each other’s works in an ‘I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine’ type arrangement that is mutually beneficial. His analysis revealed how a group of ‘strategic scholars’ could boost their impact factors by three times over ‘sincere scholars’ over the course of a few years. This increases their influence and mutes the voices of others. It reinforces the old boys’ club aspect of scientific and medical research and is particularly problematic in light of diversity and equity concerns. 

The fairness and effectiveness of impact factors has been addressed by the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). The declaration came out of the 2012 meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco. It is now an international initiative covering all scholarly disciplines. DORA confronts issues of consistency, transparency and equity in research assessment and calls for:

  • the need to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, in funding, appointment, and promotion considerations;
  • the need to assess research on its own merits rather than on the basis of the journal in which the research is published; and
  • the need to capitalize on the opportunities provided by online publication (such as relaxing unnecessary limits on the number of words, figures, and references in articles, and exploring new indicators of significance and impact).

You can read the entire declaration here. 

Garfield. (1955). Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 122(3159), 108–111 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.122.3159.108

Heathers and Grimes. (2022). The Mechanics Behind A Precipitous Rise In Impact Factor: A Case Study From the British Journal of Sports Medicine. OSFPREPRINTS  https://osf.io/pt7cv/

Phelps. (2022). How Citation Cartels Give “Strategic Scholars” an Advantage.  Retraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com/2022/05/17/how-citation-cartels-give-strategic-scholars-an-advantage-a-simple-model/

Van Noorden. (2013). Brazilian Citation Scheme Outed. Nature (London), 500(7464), 510–511. https://doi.org/10.1038/500510a

Published on

The academic publishing landscape can be difficult to navigate and Himmelfarb Library’s Scholarly Communications Committee is dedicated to answering general and specific questions that arise during the submission and publication process. The Committee continues to expand its ‘Scholarly Communications Short Video Library’ and there are nearly 20 videos to watch that cover various topics such as how to properly change citation styles, how and why to archive your publications with an institutional repository and how to set up your Google Scholar profile. If you’d like to watch the videos, but are unsure of where to begin here are some suggestions:

Advanced Literature Searches and the PubMed MeSH Search Builder:

In this lecture, you’ll learn about PubMed’s MeSH builder and how you can use it to help you perform advanced literature searches. Paul Levett, a Reference and Instructional Librarian, provides a step by step guide on how MeSH terms can be used to locate specific research articles that can assist you during the advanced literature search process. If you’re in the beginning stages of brainstorming a research topic or question, this tutorial will provide insight into how to conduct your own literature search and discover publications that will help you narrow the scope of your own research. 

Screening: What do Editors Look For?

When you’re ready to submit your research for publication, this tutorial by Reference and Instructional Librarian Stacy Brody will talk in-depth about how journal editors select manuscripts for their respective journals. The submission process may seem mysterious and difficult to understand, but this video will discuss six features editors consider when evaluating manuscripts.  

Retractions, Corrections, & Expressions of Concern:

Are you unsure of the difference between retractions, corrections and expressions of concern? Would you like to ensure you’re using research that is considered a valuable source to cite? In this tutorial, Ruth Bueter,  Serials and Systems Librarian, breaks down the difference between these terms and discusses how and why an article may be retracted or corrected or why there may be concerns with a published article.

These are just a few of the many videos currently available in the Scholarly Communication’s video library. The Scholarly Communications Committee is currently working on a new round of videos to add to the video library and hopes to share their new lectures in late spring or early summer. if you’d like to suggest a topic please fill out this suggestion form!

Published on
Image of an invoice with the words "Pay now" magnified.
"Invoice payment button" by recreahq is marked with CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

It’s a familiar scenario. You’ve completed your research, written up your findings, and selected a target journal  - which has sent your article out for review and accepted your work for publication!  You decide that you want to publish your research in an Open Access format to ensure that your findings are widely and equitably accessible. You convey your intentions to your publisher only to discover that they want you to pay a hefty Article Processing Charge (APC) in order to publish in an Open Access format. Shocked by the price, you go to your department chair with fingers crossed and request the funds to cover the fee. If you’re lucky, there are funds to cover the APC, but if not, you may find yourself having to reconsider publishing in an OA format. 

How can you be better prepared for the next time you try to publish in an Open Access format? Article processing charges frequently range from $2,000-$5,000 or more. Therefore, knowing how to identify these fees early in your research process may help you to better explore publishing options and account for costs. But finding exact costs on publisher websites can be challenging - many are located on supplemental spreadsheets that can be difficult to find. The following list can help you locate APCs for many prominent science journal publishers:

Looking for an APC not included on the lists above? Reach out to Sara Hoover, Metadata and Scholarly Publishing Librarian at shoover@gwu.edu for assistance. 

For more information on this topic, see Himmelfarb’s video tutorials:

Published on
Image of a person icon motioning to a blue "tips" button.
Image from https://www.pxfuel.com/en/free-photo-qlhsz

With the deadline for abstract submissions for SMHS Medical Student Research Day quickly approaching (Monday, March 14, 2022), there isn’t much time left to get your abstract ready. Himmelfarb Library can help! Our GW Research Day Resources: Writing Abstracts guide is a great place to get started!

Knowing what needs to be included in your abstract before you get started is key. Your abstract should include four specific aspects:

Abstract Do’s: 4 Things to Include

  1. Problem Statement/Introduction: Explain why your research is important, and be sure to make this engaging enough to grab the reader’s attention! 
  1. Methods: Explain how you did your research and obtained the results. Research design, setting, population and sample size, study duration, research instrument, and treatment or procedure should all be included here.
  1. Results: Explain your findings, but don’t analyze the results here - save your analysis for the conclusion!
  1. Conclusion: Analyze the results and implications of your findings here.

Knowing what not to include in your abstract is just as important as knowing what to include. Avoid including the following four pitfalls:

Abstract Don’ts: 4 Things to Avoid

  1. Too Much Information: An abstract should be succinct: keep it short and to the point. Don’t overload your abstract with information. A good abstract should be between 250-400 words, so keep it simple.
  1. Incomplete Sentences: Don’t use bullet points or incomplete sentences. An abstract is a short narrative of your project, so writing in complete sentences is a must.
  1. Jargon: Avoid using abbreviations, acronyms and jargon in your abstract. 
  1. Images, Tables, Graphs, and References: Images of any kind, or references to them, should be avoided. Save the graphics for your poster.

For a more in-depth explanation of best practices for writing research day abstracts, watch Himmelfarb’s How to Create and Write Your Abstract video.

Looking at examples of well written abstracts can also be helpful. Stay tuned to Himmelfarb’s blog in early April for more information on creating an effective poster! 

Good luck and happy writing!

Published on
Image of stone Holocaust memorial sculpture (adults and children paying respects to victims).
Photo from https://www.pxfuel.com/en/free-photo-xjrjp

In an effort to remain accountable to communities who have been negatively impacted by past and present medical injustices, the staff at Himmelfarb Library is committed to the work of maintaining an anti-discriminatory practice. We will uplift and highlight diverse stories throughout the year, and not shy away from difficult conversations necessary for health sciences education. To help fulfill this mission, today's blog post explores the ethics of using the results of Nazi experiments during WWII. This post is a follow-up to our International Holocaust Remembrance Day post from January 26, 2022.

It is no secret that during the Holocaust, Nazi’s performed brutal and inhumane experiments on prisoners in concentration camps. These experiments were not only painful, they were often deadly. It was not uncommon for prisoners who had survived these experiments to be put to death afterwards “in order to facilitate postmortem examination” (USHMM, n.d.). However, questions surrounding the ethics of using the data and results of these experiments remain unsettled.

In 1984, Kristine Moe attempted to tackle some of these questions in her seminal article titled Should the Nazi Research Data be Cited? In this article, Moe poses some interesting questions that are still worth considering today: 

“If the experiments were conducted in an unethical manner, can the results be considered reliable? If the results are useful, can we afford to ignore them? Does the use of the data imply an endorsement of the methods by which they were gathered, and provide a justification for further unethical research?”

(Moe, 1984)

At the time this article was written, many scientists viewed Nazi data as both useful and “necessary to their work” (Moe, 1984). Take for example Eduard Pernkopf’s Atlas of Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy, sometimes referred to as the “atlas of the Shoah” (Mackinnon, 2020). Nerve surgeon Susan Mackinnon writes about the ethical dilemma she faced upon realizing that the “old but precise textbook” she’d relied on for so long was the product of “a Viennese anatomist who had dissected Hitler’s victims to produce his detailed illustrations'' (Mackinnon, 2020). The accuracy and detail of the images in this textbook were a direct result of the “cadaveric nature of the emaciated bodies, a product of torture and great suffering” (Mackinnon, 2020).

In the late 1980s, Robert Pozos, a physiologist and expert on hypothermia, and Arthur Caplan, a professor of medical ethics, held a conference at the University of Minnesota to discuss if and how to “use hypothermia information gathered at Dachau” (Caplan, 2021). During this conference, some attendees expressed their view that “using immorally acquired information” is justifiable if it is the only way to save a life (Caplan, 2021). Caplan argues that the use of “tainted information” adds legitimacy to this information, thus requiring the need for “good teaching about the horrific history of this information’s creation and careful deliberation about how it is referenced and cited in journals, books, exhibitions, clinical practice guidelines, award presentations, talks, and other sources” (Caplan, 2021).

Some researchers find the Nazi data to be weak, but still use the data to affirm more reliable experimental results. Still others are wholly opposed to the use of this data. Arnold Relman, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, stated that the Nazi experiments were “such a gross violation of human standards that they are not to be trusted at all” (Moe, 1984). Allen Buchanan, a former philosopher at the University of Arizona who reviewed work on human subjects observed that “experiments that are ethically unsound are also scientifically unsound. Very rarely have I seen an experiment that is very good and valuable that had serious ethical problems” (Moe, 1984). This statement makes a strong case against the scientific soundness of Nazi experiments.

A 1990 article entitled Nazi Science: The Dachau Hypothermia Experiments exposed the lack of credibility and scientific vigor of the Nazi experiments. These experiments were found to have been “conducted without an orderly experimental protocol, with inadequate methods and an erratic execution,” and reports were “riddled with inconsistencies” (Berger, 1990). Additionally, there was evidence of data falsification and fabrication (Berger, 1990). Berger makes a strong case for abandoning future citations of Nazi data based on “scientific grounds” (Berger, 1990).

Others find the issue to be more nuanced. Caplan argued that “tainted” information could be used “if, at the same time, non-maleficence can be achieved and the physician acknowledges and discloses the immoral origins of the work, in a manner that honors the victims but not its perpetrators” (Mackinnon, 2020). Mackinnon presented a four-step framework to consider when use of the Pernkopf Atlas is deemed to be potentially helpful. This framework includes taking a timeout to reassess planning, consult a colleague for help, and consult other educational resources or textbooks. As a last resort, the atlas can be consulted, but only if it is done with “disclosure, respect, gratitude, and solemnity” (Mackinnon, 2020). 

The dialog around this issue is an important one. The topic has experienced a resurgence in recent years and discussion of the topic has been renewed. Mackinnon eloquently states that “as physicians and educators, we have an enduring moral duty to recount history, share knowledge with generations that follow, and protect against new versions of the atrocities of the past” (Mackinnon, 2020). 

References:

Berger, R. L. (1990). Nazi science: The Dachau hypothermia experiments. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(20), 1435-1440. Retrieved from https://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199005173222006

Caplan. (2021). How Should We Regard Information Gathered in Nazi Experiments? AMA Journal of Ethics, 23(1), E55–E58. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2021.55 Retrieved from https://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-should-we-regard-information-gathered-nazi-experiments/2021-01

Mackinnon S. (2020). When medical information comes from Nazi atrocities. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 368, l7075. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l7075 Retrieved from https://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.l7075

Moe, K. (1984). Should the Nazi Research Data Be Cited? The Hastings Center Report, 14(6), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/3561733 Retrieved from https://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3561733

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (n.d.) United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Website. https://www.ushmm.org/

Published on
Image of orange Open Access buttons.
"Open Access Buttons" by h_pampel is licensed under CC BY-SA-2.0

We have exciting news for GW authors! As an upgrade to our existing journal subscriptions, GW authors are now able to waive Article Processing Charges (APCs) when publishing in “Hybrid” or “Gold” Open Access Cambridge Journals! Himmelfarb Library, in partnership with Gelman Library (GW Libraries and Academic Innovation) and Burns Law Library, has entered into a new “transformative” agreement with Cambridge University Press that allows GW authors to publish their research as open access at no cost to authors.

This agreement covers nearly 50 medicine and health sciences journals including these 10 popular titles:

You can view a full list of journals covered in this agreement on the Cambridge Open Access Waivers and Discounts website. Simply enter “United States” in the Country/Territory box, then select “George Washington University” from the Institution drop-down menu to view a full list of journal titles covered under this agreement.

To be eligible to waive the Article Processing Charges, articles must:

  • Have a corresponding author affiliated with GW.
  • Be original research - eligible article types include research articles, review articles, rapid communications, brief reports and case reports.
  • Be accepted for publication in a Cambridge University Press journal covered by the agreement.
  • Be accepted for publication after January 1, 2022.

Taking advantage of this agreement is easy! 

Step 1: Submit your research using GW’s affiliation (remember - eligibility is based on the corresponding author’s affiliation). 

Step 2: When your article is accepted, choose the Gold Open Access option in your author publishing agreement form and choose your preferred Creative Commons (CC) license. Be sure to check your funder mandates to see if you need to comply with specific CC mandates.

Step 3: Cambridge will automatically waive your Article Processing Charges!

Step 4: Promote your research. Make sure your research gets seen and read now that it’s been published as Open Access and is freely available to everyone! Want some tips and ideas about how to promote your research? Watch our short Promoting Your Research video. And be sure to submit your article to be archived in the Health Sciences Research Commons, Himmelfarb’s institutional repository.

To learn more, check out this slide deck that breaks the process down into easy to follow steps.

For more information, please contact Ruth Bueter at rbueter@gwu.edu.

Published on
Image of a jigsaw puzzle with an image of a DNA double helix with random pieces missing.
Image from: https://www.pxfuel.com/en/free-photo-exwwg/download

Do you have questions about research and publishing? Need help finding the missing pieces of knowledge about the research life cycle? Himmelfarb Library’s Scholarly Research and Publishing Committee has a library of short video tutorials that can help! 

These videos cover a wide range of research and publishing related topics that span all phases of the research life cycle. From project planning and development, publishing your research, to promoting and preserving your research after publication, these brief tutorials (5 minutes or less) provide quick and focused answers to some popular research and publishing questions.

Perhaps you are new to research and are just learning about the research process. Our Research Life Cycle video will give you a great overview of what happens during each phase of the research process. 

Do you have questions about authorship credit and contributor roles for your upcoming research article? Check out our Give CREDiT video to learn about contributor roles and how to ensure that researchers involved in your project can get credit for their work.

Do you want to know more about open access publishing and whether or not it’s the right format for your research? Himmelfarb’s Open Access and Your Research video provides some basic information about open access and explores open access publishing options and archiving research in an open access format.

Have you recently published your research, but aren’t sure how to promote your work so it is seen by the widest possible audience? You can learn basic social media promotion tips, how to write a tweetable abstract, and the benefits of including your research in open access repositories in our Promoting Your Research tutorial.

We encourage you to explore the full video library to learn more about the research life cycle, publishing, and promoting your research. Can’t find a video for a topic you’d like us to cover? Let us know your idea by completing a brief survey and we’ll consider adding the topic in future videos! If you have questions related to research, publishing, or promoting your work, our Scholarly Publishing Guide has a wealth of information that can help. You can also reach out to us at himmelfarb@gwu.edu. 

Published on

As we start the new semester in 2022, the Scholarly Communications Committee is pleased to share another round of short video lectures to help researchers navigate scholarly publishing and promotion. The short lectures will cover a variety of topics including promoting your research after publication, the research life cycle, open access publishing and much more. The new videos are available for viewing on the ‘Scholarly Communications Short Video Library’ and on Himmelfarb Library’s YouTube Channel under the ‘Scholarly Communications Videos’ playlist.

Here are the titles and descriptions for each video:

Promoting Your Research
Are you looking for ways to promote your research or publications? In this brief tutorial we cover basic social media promotion tips, tweetable abstracts, and the value of including your research in open access repositories. We also discuss the importance of ensuring that researcher profiles include accurate and up to date publication information.

Advanced Literature Searches and the MeSH Search Builder
This tutorial provides information on how to access and utilize the MeSH search builder using PubMed. We discuss how to perform advanced literature searches using this tool.

The Research Cycle
This tutorial provides an overview of the research lifecycle and describes what happens in each phase.

CREDiT taxonomy
Do you have questions about authorship credit and order? The CREDiT taxonomy can help! In this tutorial we discuss contributor roles and publishers that utilize CREDiT to ensure that researchers get credit for their work!

Retractions, errata, expressions of concern
In this tutorial we give an overview of retractions, corrections, and expressions of concern. We discuss reasons for retractions, the process of making corrections to published research, and look at examples in PubMed.

Open Access and Your Research
Is there value to publishing your research in an Open Access (OA) format? In this tutorial we define Open Access, give examples of different types of OA, and discuss options for publishing or archiving research in an OA format. 

Once you’ve finished watching the new videos, explore our video library and watch the previous short lectures to learn more about publication, promotion and the resources Himmelfarb Library offers. 

If you are a researcher with questions or concerns about publishing your research or looking for ways to promote your work to a wide audience, the Scholarly Communications Committee is here to assist you at every step of the process. Feel free to contact members of the committee via email by using the email address listed at the end of each video or contact Himmelfarb Library at himmelfarb@gwu.edu. If you have suggestions for future video topics, leave them in the comments or send an email and a staff member will share it with the committee.

Published on
Image of black keyboard keys spelling the word "scam" on a red table.
Photo by Mikhail Nilov from Pexels

While it’s no secret that predatory publishers have existed for years, there appears to be a recent trend of scam guest editors infiltrating legitimate scholarly journals and taking over special issues of journals published by large, trusted publishers. Publishers including Elsevier, Taylor and Francis, and Springer Nature have all fallen victim to this new tactic used by scammers. It appears that the scholarly publishing community now has to not only be wary of predatory journals, but predatory editors as well.

The Arabian Journal of Geosciences, published by Springer Nature, has published 412 suspicious articles in recent months. Most of these articles were complete nonsense and included topics unrelated to geosciences including swimming, basketball, “sea-level height and aerobics training”, and “sports-injury insurance along with rainfall” (Bartlett, 2021). The founder and editor-in-chief of Arabian Journal of Geosciences claimed that his email account had been hacked, and that he was “just as perplexed as everyone else about how so many ridiculous papers… made it into the journal” (Bartlett, 2021). 

In April 2021, computer science researchers noticed journal articles using strange terms that they called “tortured phrases” (Else, 2021b). The phrases they noticed included terms like “counterfeit consciousness” instead of “artificial intelligence,” and “colossal information” instead of “big data” (Else, 2021b). One Elsevier journal in particular, Microprocessors and Microsystems, seemed to have published 31 of these phrases in a single article! 

In both of these cases, the sham papers were discovered by outside entities - not by journal editors, the journal’s editorial boards, or even by the publisher. The Springer Nature articles were discovered by commenters on PubPeer, “a website that allows readers to dissect scientific papers after they’re published” (Bartlett, 2021). The Elsevier papers were discovered by Guillaume Cabanac and a group of computer scientists working on a study (Else, 2021a). Cabanac and his team suspected that the “tortured phrases” resulted from the use of automated translation software or other software that can be used to help disguise plagiarism (Bartlett, 2021). They identified around 500 questionable articles with “critical flaws” that included nonsensical text and plagiarized text and images (Bartlett, 2021). 

Springer Nature and Elseiver both launched investigations. Elsevier identified 400 articles in which the “peer review process was compromised” (Marcus, 2021). Elsevier issued a statement explaining that “the integrity and rigor of the peer-review process” had fallen “beneath the high standards expected by Microprocessors and Microsystems” (Marcus, 2021). Elsevier also acknowledged that a “configuration error in the editorial system” resulting from a system migration temporarily prevented appropriate editors from handling papers for approval (Else, 2021b). This issue was resolved soon after being discovered. Elsevier began to re-assess all papers that were published in the special issues in question and has made the appropriate retractions and expressions of concern. In addition, the publisher began to take a deeper look into the “overall processes regarding Special Issues in all subject areas” and introduced “further checks to ensure that all accept decisions are confirmed by an Editor in Chief or editorial board member and to alert staff to irregularities as a Special Issue progresses” (Marcus, 2021).

The Springer Nature investigation exposed “deliberate attempts to subvert the trust-based editorial process and manipulate the publication record” according to a spokesperson for the publisher (Else, 2021a). It’s common for journals to publish special issues of articles focusing on a specific topic. It’s also common for these special issues to be “overseen by guest editors who are experts in the research topic, but are not usually involved in the day-to-day editorial work of the journal” (Else, 2021a). In recent years, it seems that the number of guest editors using these special issues to disseminate low quality research has become more noticable. Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch stated that “it is not clear whether special-issue scamming is becoming more common or whether it is just becoming more visible. I do think that the journals are waking up to it, actually looking for it and having systems in place” (Else, 2021a). 

While it’s alarming that scammers have been able to use special issues of legitimate journals published by well-respected publishers to disseminate low-quality or even pseudo-science articles, it’s encouraging that these publishers are starting to take steps to prevent this from happening in the future. Elsevier now “validates the identities and qualifications of guest editors” in addition to having added the additional measure of having an Editor-in-Chief or editorial board member confirm each paper’s acceptance in an effort to catch irregularities (Else, 2021a). Springer Nature is not only “putting extra checks in place,” but they are “developing artificial-intelligence tools that can identify and prevent attempts to deliberately manipulate the system” (Else, 2021a). Springer Nature also plans to share the evidence they are gathering regarding “how the deceptions are carried out” with other publishers (Else, 2021a). 

References:

Bartlett, T. (2021) Why did a peer-reviewed journal publish hundreds of nonsense papers? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 68(4), https://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-did-a-peer-reviewed-journal-publish-hundreds-of-nonsense-papers

Else, H. (2021a). Scammers impersonate guest editors to get sham papers published. Nature, 599(7885), 361–361. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03035-y

Else, H. (2021b). “Tortured phrases” give away fabricated research papers. Nature, 596(7872), 328–329. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02134-0

Marcus, A. (2021). Elsevier says “integrity and rigor” of peer review for 400 papers fell “beneath the high standards expected.” Retraction Watch [BLOG]. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/07/12/elsevier-says-integrity-and-rigor-of-peer-review-for-400-papers-fell-beneath-the-high-standards-expected/

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.