Wow... I was just pointed to this paper
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081
and its retraction
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081

Want to read the first sentence of the introduction together with me?
"Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic: Lithiummetal batteries are..."

What the...
This passed #peerreview in a journal with IF=6.3 ?!

#science #publishing #ai #slop #bullshit #researchethics #openscience #misconduct #misconductsconduct #elsevier #journal

Wow... I was just pointed to this paper
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081
and its retraction
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081

Want to read the first sentence of the introduction together with me?
"Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic: Lithiummetal batteries are..."

What the...
This passed #peerreview in a journal with IF=6.3 ?!

#science #publishing #ai #slop #bullshit #researchethics #openscience #misconduct #misconductsconduct #elsevier #journal

"More than 20% of chemistry researchers have deliberately added information they believe to be incorrect into their manuscripts during the peer review process, in order to get their papers published."
https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/One-five-chemists-deliberately-added/103/web/2025/10

* Primary source
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2025.2564106
(#paywalled)

#AddedValue #Chemistry #PeerReview #Reviewer2 #ScholComm

"More than 20% of chemistry researchers have deliberately added information they believe to be incorrect into their manuscripts during the peer review process, in order to get their papers published."
https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/One-five-chemists-deliberately-added/103/web/2025/10

* Primary source
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2025.2564106
(#paywalled)

#AddedValue #Chemistry #PeerReview #Reviewer2 #ScholComm

Since there are many potential associations between 5 personality traits and 2 outcomes (in 2 possible directions), we found the #RegisteredReport approach in @pcirr useful for restricting hypothesis and analysis #DegreesOfFreedom. We received expert #PeerReview input that led us to adjust and improve our research plan. (3/3)

New rules on my part for requests for peer review:

1. If you write to me on a Saturday or a Sunday it is an instant decline.
2. If you insist on having the review within 7 days, I will decline.
3. If you already set up an account for me (probably the umpteenth one) on your editorial software, it is an instant decline.
4. Springer, Elsevier, and predatory publishers should not even bother asking.

You want me to work for free for you, but you don't care about my weekends or my current workload and your focus is on making money, not publishing science? Respect your peer reviewers if you are not paying for their time!

#AcademicChatter #PeerReview

New rules on my part for requests for peer review:

1. If you write to me on a Saturday or a Sunday it is an instant decline.
2. If you insist on having the review within 7 days, I will decline.
3. If you already set up an account for me (probably the umpteenth one) on your editorial software, it is an instant decline.
4. Springer, Elsevier, and predatory publishers should not even bother asking.

You want me to work for free for you, but you don't care about my weekends or my current workload and your focus is on making money, not publishing science? Respect your peer reviewers if you are not paying for their time!

#AcademicChatter #PeerReview

When scholarly discussions happen in private Slack channels or get buried in Twitter threads, most researchers miss out. Sciety has secured funding from @nlnet to build something better. We're working with @bonfire, to develop a space for preprint discussion that is open, interoperable and will allow any preprint evaluation community to replicate and run themselves
Read more: https://blog.sciety.org/sciety-secures-funding-from-nlnet-foundation-to-help-build-discourse-around-preprints/#Fediverse#Preprints #PeerReview

When scholarly discussions happen in private Slack channels or get buried in Twitter threads, most researchers miss out. Sciety has secured funding from @nlnet to build something better. We're working with @bonfire, to develop a space for preprint discussion that is open, interoperable and will allow any preprint evaluation community to replicate and run themselves
Read more: https://blog.sciety.org/sciety-secures-funding-from-nlnet-foundation-to-help-build-discourse-around-preprints/#Fediverse#Preprints #PeerReview