Wear Their Hides: Reports That Lead to Retractions Should Receive Formal Credit | Arthur J. Boston

flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks 2024-05-22


Behavioral neuroscientist Mu Yang, Ph.D. apparently caused the retraction of an entire book, Progress in Nanomedicine in Neurologic Diseases. To the credit of Springer, it appears the publisher acted quickly to retract this monograph, just published in July 2023.

Although it’s not super obvious on first glance at the title, overview, book description, or bibliographic information, if you look closer, you finally see the RETRACTED BOOK watermark on the cover image.

Clicking to download a chapter PDF leads to a document that clearly states this book has been retracted “after being informed that there were systemic issues with the Figures presented in this volume…” The notice goes onto outline a dozen areas where the figures are problematic.

Most interesting, to me, is the final paragraph describing which people associated with the book have agreed, disagreed, not stated an opinion, or have yet to reply to correspondence about the retraction decision.

All of this is valuable information to include in the scholarly record. And in some regard, this is all the information that anyone should need about the merits of the book’s content or lack thereof. But that’s not quite right.





From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks


oa.new oa.retractions oa.peer_review oa.credit oa.incentives

Date tagged:

05/22/2024, 03:15

Date published:

05/21/2024, 23:15