"[A]s many as 35,000 papers in [the MCB journal published from 2009-2016] are candidates for retraction due to image duplication. ... [D]eliberate image manipulation and fabrication indicate misconduct. ... Most peer reviewers do not have the expertise to analyze papers for scientific misconduct. Consequently, the responsibility of screening for plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, and other forms of science misconduct often lies with editors."
On the bright side, archaeological journals such as Tel Aviv don't publish as frequently as MCB.
G.M. Grena
No comments:
Post a Comment