Use this link:
or this one
Both work fine, as do the less-breathy less tabloidesque links such as nature.com I also provided.
Where on nature.com ?
I am not buying any of this. If it were true, there would be corroborating articles in the news.
1 Like
Oh wait- I did find this- 2 years old?
Hindawi and Wiley to retract over 500 papers linked to peer review rings | UKSG.
well gnsnews is my typo the website is gnews.org
(I have no idea how or why I added 2 extra letters)
As for nature.com the full link is More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record
Exactly precisely like I provided in post #2.
Top of the page looks something like this:
the other links I provided are also good
including the one Wiley itself provided.
Wiley said it. Wiley posted it. I reposted it.
Must be ■■■■■■■■ ?
2 years old.
Also- Now I get it. Wiley to stop using “Hindawi” name amid $18 million revenue decline | ISSN
Yup read your own article for crying out loud.
In August 2022 Wiley announced it was retracting over 100 articles.
Then in September it announced a further 500.
In recent years the totals are apparently far higher, 10,000 one year, 11,000 the next. 19 entire journals shut down in a single year.
The quality of peer review at a number of Hindawi journals has been the subject of criticism. In 2010, Hindawi was classified as a possible predatory publisher by Jeffrey Beall, but was removed following a successful appeal.[6] In 2023, Wiley announced after over 7000 article retractions in Hindawi journals related to the publication of articles originating from paper mills that it will cease using the Hindawi brand and will integrate Hindawi’s 200 remaining journals into its main portfolio.[7][8] The Wiley CEO who initiated the Hindawi acquisition stepped down in the wake of those retractions.[9]
Speaking as someone who has published dozens of articles over the past quarter century, I can tell you there are some journals that are legitimate and some that are not. Folks like to get published for all sorts of reasons, to keep tenure or to get into fellowships, in example. You can break these journals into three basic groups:
- Non-Peer reviewed journals which act more like filler for all the industry ads that are crammed in them, usually free to subscribe and not taken nearly as seriously.
- Peer Reviewed Journals that are legitimate and very difficult to get published in without connections, but easy to get published in if you have friends as some of the editors.
- “Peer Reviewed” Journals which are simply publishing mills to pad resumes. Not taken seriously and often make the author pay for the article to be published.
Where you see a lot of scrapping is in #3. A lot of AI generated stuff there, attributions that simply don’t exist, non-sensical garbled sentences etc. None of it is really edited, because as long as the author pays it gets published. Not on paper, just electronically.
This is why competition for the real thing can be so intense. I have had papers rejected for a decade before finally being accepted, but each time it was rejected I took the reviewer’s suggestions to heart and improved the paper to the point it was bullet proof. Some times, so much time had passed that the paper was no longer salient and I scrapped them myself.
You don’t get paid to publish, in an ideal world you do this to advance the science. Maybe someone uses your paper as a guide to their paper and they give you credit in their resource list. That always feels good to know your work furthers others’ work.
AI is really gumming things up, writing a paper is really hard work but once it all comes together, it’s really nice putting something original out into the world. There has to be a way to discourage users from simply plugging ideas into an AI generator and making papers in a matter of minutes.
4 Likes
Yes, college professors often get to choose their own reviewers.
The Publisher is supposed to add a smaller number of non-selected reviewers on top of that . . . which they do by contracting with other college professors. One of my (Penn State) professors was the primary force behind a scholarly journal on Adult Education. It was picked-up by Sage, who kept her and her team on as the primaries. (That was decades ago. I doubt she is still involved. )
1 Like
My impression is that AI is “catching” more and more fakers, hence the reason retractions went from a few hundred a month pre-AI to almost 1,000 a month now.
The point is, someone at Wiley (who was later fired) opted to acquire Hindawi, which was a bad idea, since Hindawi was a paper mill that took the term peer review rather lightly. So they published a lot of nonsense, and Wiley cleared it up.
That’s a good thing, not a scandal for Wiley.
2 Likes
agreed.
And I note that Wiley and the others (belatedly) retracted 10,000 articles one year and 11,000 articles the next. It looks like they are doing a good, (if belated) job of policing a less-than-totally-honest industry.
Note post #7 from above.
I wonder if she kept her job.
It appears that Hindawi journals did not use anything recognizable as a “peer review” and were charging authors to publish their papers. Reputable journals do not do that. What I hope we are seeing here is the scientific community policing itself… which is a good thing. It would be nice if some of our other institutions were willing to police themselves as well.
1 Like
What I am seeing here is
- a lot of academia running amuck for a very long time and
- thousands of professor involved in widespread fraud,
- tens of thousand more willfully turning a blind eye and saying “trust the science”
- and now finally at least some sort of attempt to finally try to get it under control.
Blame Wiley? No I don’t.
I think they are finally policing the professoriate which for decades ahs been as honest as used car salesmen.
We will know the job is done when the thousands of fraud-committing professors are thrown out of their jobs and considered for criminal fraud charges.
.
.
.
.
I can almost hear the fraud-committing scam-artist professors now:
“Hey I defrauded universities, state governments, my students, their parents, and research funders for years. My total fraudulent gains are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I deprived honest academics of university positions. But I am not a Republican so don’t prosecute me.”
1 Like
Look at the Appeal to Authority pets defend anything about this that they possible can. They’re “educated”. 
Not done yet.
First we have to recognize that thousands of professors, for decades have been submitting fraudulent research.
Their co-authors and fraudulent reviewers are just as guilty/
1.) Each and every one of those professor should be punished by their universities. (I believe firing is appropriate.)
2.) They secured their jobs (lots of money) and in many case research contracts (lots of money) by committing fraud. They should be prosecuted just as you, or I, or president Trump would be if we made thousands and thousands of dollars (multiple years of a professor salary.) —> This should/could include at least 100% restitution of their entire, salaries, plus interest. plus penalties. In cases exceeding $100,000 (about 8-month’s salary) jail time should not be ruled out.
3.) They are dishonest people and have been academically dishonest. They can never be trusted again. They should be banned from academia for life and replaced with persons who have no such history of fraud.
No special treatment. They and their families had many years of benefit from their fraudulent acts against taxpayers, students and student families.
Then and only then will it be “cleared up.”
1 Like
This one is my favorite.
Peter Boghossian was on Rogan.
Hilarious 
3 Likes
This is making the former harvard president Claudine Gay looks like a genius.
With all that endowments, high tuition rates and grants makes higher education ripe for racketeering.
Without tenure they cant afford to pay for their dentures.
2 Likes
And that’s the point.
Publishing a non-fraudulent article is a condition of getting and keeping the job.
Ergo, publishing a fraudulent one is a criminal act for material gain. An average college prof makes about $100k a year (although a LOT of them make more, that’s the average, not the median) so fraudulently getting and keeping such a job for 10 years is quickly a million-dollar crime.
- The scam-artist authors should be treated the way you, or I, or Donald Trump would be if we scammed a university out of $1million.
- So should the selected “reviewers,” so should the assigned “referees,” so should anyone who participated in the cover-ups or in any way withheld information.
- Naturally those who turn-in their colleagues and testify against them should get lighter sentences, but all of them should make restitution, be permanently barred from academia and, in some cases serve jailtime.
- Anywhere and everywhere they apply for a McJob in the future their prospective employers should be made aware “This person has a history of scamming employers out of a lot of money.”
1 Like
