Read on Twitter
Several people asked me what the worst journals are to respond to image duplication or other concerns and/or to retract.
Here are a couple from my list:
(thread)
Here are a couple from my list:
(thread)
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology @SpringerNature
I reported 10 papers in 2015; none of them have been corrected or retracted.
In PubMed: only 5 of their 13,836 papers retracted.
I reported 10 papers in 2015; none of them have been corrected or retracted.
In PubMed: only 5 of their 13,836 papers retracted.
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol, also from @SpringerNature is also not responsive: only one retraction, no correction of the 30 papers I reported in 2015.
In PubMed only 2 retractions among their 8,595 papers (one of them is from my set).
In PubMed only 2 retractions among their 8,595 papers (one of them is from my set).
Still from @SpringerNature, is journal "Molecular Cellular Biochemistry", with 8 retractions among 11,000 papers in PubMed.
I reported ~60 papers in 2015, nothing ever happened. They did not even reply to my question for an update in 2017. Complete silence. One of the worst.
I reported ~60 papers in 2015, nothing ever happened. They did not even reply to my question for an update in 2017. Complete silence. One of the worst.
Moving on to @ElsevierConnect journals.
"Cytokine": 30 reported, 2 retractions, 2 corrections.
Of their 5,886 papers in PubMed only 5 were retracteed.
"Cytokine": 30 reported, 2 retractions, 2 corrections.
Of their 5,886 papers in PubMed only 5 were retracteed.
PNAS journal @PNASNews is also not responsive at all.
34 papers in my list, only 1 retraction, but some corrections.
An example of a concern that they allowed to be corrected (a retraction would have been better):
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3DD1F64BC7808E9120AAFC138D6927#3
34 papers in my list, only 1 retraction, but some corrections.
An example of a concern that they allowed to be corrected (a retraction would have been better):
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3DD1F64BC7808E9120AAFC138D6927#3
Still waiting to hear from "Cancer Investigation" and "Growth Factors" by @tandfonline. I reported about 30 papers in total, most in 2015, but nothing happened with those. They gave no update after I asked for it in 2017.
Most of the @ASMicrobiology journals have been responsive, although they usually do not retract papers older than 6y.
But Appl Environ Microbiology has been absolutely unresponsive. None of the 19 papers I reported years ago have been touched as far as I know.
But Appl Environ Microbiology has been absolutely unresponsive. None of the 19 papers I reported years ago have been touched as far as I know.
Then @BioMedCentral
Overall one of the worst responders - only 2 retractions among the ~180 papers I flagged on PubPeer or reported in 2015. Here is an example from the journal "Breast Cancer" reported in 2015 but no action.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/68E8D12EFBA6D1C90AD5DC37158D43
Overall one of the worst responders - only 2 retractions among the ~180 papers I flagged on PubPeer or reported in 2015. Here is an example from the journal "Breast Cancer" reported in 2015 but no action.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/68E8D12EFBA6D1C90AD5DC37158D43
Moving on to the @PLOS stable. Here, @PLOSNTDs is by far the worst. A polite "thank you we got it" but no retractions and only 3 corrections after I reported 25 papers in 2015.
An old favorite, @Oncotarget. I flagged 161 of their papers (most reported a year ago), but only 2 retractions.They have been sending annoyed responses though, that I should look at other journals, and what my conflicts of interests are. Not interested in solving issues.
Ah, we arrive at Spandidos. Bad, bad publisher.
I have reported 170 papers were reported to them from 2015 to August 2020, but they DID NOT EVEN REPLY.
Maybe too busy counting their publication fee $$$ ?
I have reported 170 papers were reported to them from 2015 to August 2020, but they DID NOT EVEN REPLY.
Maybe too busy counting their publication fee $$$ ?
I will stop here, but it would be good to put things into perspective.
Of the 1095 papers I reported >5y ago, only 138 have been retracted, 16 have an Expression of Concern, and 295 have been corrected. No action for 682 papers = (62%).
Of the 1095 papers I reported >5y ago, only 138 have been retracted, 16 have an Expression of Concern, and 295 have been corrected. No action for 682 papers = (62%).
