Excellent work. I hadn't heard of this practice, but if it is prevalent at all it must be stopped (by making it public) ASAP. It's going to be interesting what the differences to the hard sciences are. I'd predict not as much coercive quoting, since there delineating between what actually is a (hard) foundation and what is not is much easier.As for the gratuitous authorships. This must be looked at with differentiated view: in some sciences it is just standrad practice that the leader of an institute gets included in the list of authors. Whether That's good or bad is an issue in itself (Personally I find it a good indicator of whether I put a paper on the top of the pile for reading or not. You know that some groups have a track record of excellence - and that the head of the institute at least reads the papers to make sure that only excellent papers are submitted)
Power corrupts, so where are the checks and balances? If editors watch the authors, who watches the watchers? Obviously, the readers do. Yet if they can't spot this type of OBVIOUS misconduct - and call the journal out on it - then does it really matter? Isn't that prima facie evidence that the rag is rubbish? What else would you expect to happen when there is one academic position for every 3 or 4 (or 10) PhD in many fields? 30% of social "science" isn't replicable...what more needs to be said?
The 'peer' reviewed journals are gospel.
in some sciences it is just standard practice that the leader of an institute gets included in the list of authors. Whether that's good or bad is an issue in itself
Imagine what Google's Orwellian little idea pusher software would to with this. The software program that will be a 'truth-o-meter' ranking system.It would make this sort of thing more difficult to bring out. As it goes against the facts, the norms, you see?No-one can find truth in a selective fact system, and that is what Google is proposing. their methodology is severely flawed.It would make finding this data, knowing it exists, and getting the message out, far more difficult and far more unlikely that the issue would be found in the first place.Not exactly the best fit of a comment for for this article, but that Google proposal, that overt controlling elitist fascism thing..... has really pissed me off. For all the right reasons. Lord knows I don't care about some kardashian ass-thing pictures, and want it out of the system completely, but that is not for me to judge. Most specifically, Google is not to be in the judgement business.
Of course it's a bad practice - if nothing else it's a form of corruption
It's only a form of corruption if the person profits by it.
Not very objective.
The thing that qualifies scientists - apart from being objective - is this: they are not stupid.
I define stupid is choosing to remain ignorant
Especially economics and socialism.
the difference between socialism and communism?
I had a similar thing happen during my defense when one of the committee members asked to add one of his papers to my dissertation. I didn't mind doing it - it was at least somewhat related and it meant that I'd get my PhD and hadn't wasted 7 years of my life ;). I probably could have objected and not done it and still got my degree, but it was hard to come up with justification to do that. I've never had a reviewer ask me to add a reference on a paper I've written, though. But I haven't written a journal paper in over a decade, so things might have changed. Or maybe things are different in the hard sciences.
But I haven't written a journal paper in over a decade, so things might have changed.
Do you even have an inkling how stupid the stuff you write actually makes you sound?
How much science was accomplished BEFORE the creation of all the agencies designed to 'help' science?
It's only a form of corruption if the person profits by it
Of course some people will profit from it, or the citations of leader of an institute wouldn't be done.
I'm not sure how many famous scientists there are.
The reason leaders of institutes get sometimes included in the author list is so that you know which group this is from
This is completely nonsensical reasoning
The only difference is style, not substance
as the affiliations of authors are given in articles explicitly at separate place.
the objective analysis and attention should always focus to the content of work
I'm pretty well aware that the contemporary scientists are like voting trolls here at physorg - they focus to persons instead of their ideas
Adding additional references by editor himself/herself is rare but paper referee request of addition of some specific references, relevant to the paper I think is common. I did it few times myself. Mostly in cases where authors new " theory or explanation" refutes older theories, all of which must be cited and discussed in the paper if the paper really claims to refute them.Let's be honest. When you are using multimillion dollar lab you'd better include its director otherwise you're going to have a problem to book time on the equipment in the future. Is it ethical. Of course not. What worse is that if conclusions of your paper are contradictory to the directors distinguished record you screwed.It is sad that, as a result of such practices,science is a witness to countless volumes of thoughtless panegyrics excreted by top academics in quest for their self-aggrandizement and financial gain and dedicated solely to grandeur of their illustrious sponsors.
The problem is in catastrophic collapse of funding and erratic scrambling of scientists for leftover bread crumbs of research money by filing thirty or more research proposal a year everywhere practically begging for just few thousands $. Under such duress especially young scientists cannot afford to confront any ideas worshiped by members of proposal review panels. It leads inevitably strait to mediocrity and opportunism both killers of true science while proliferate volumes of incoherent utterances. Open any scientific journal and examine for yourself mostly re-warmed half-century-old ideas and outright baseless speculations presented as facts. The fairness in reviewing of scientific papers is and will always depend of sense of individual morality of reviewer, responsibility for scientific community and its relevance in social context. Virtues desperately lack in today's business of science. More found at https://contraria...science/
"Study Finds There Are Too Many Studies"http://sacramento...studies/
Switch to http://phys.org/
Lofi version of phys.org