Finland group downgrades 60 journals
A panel in Finland downgraded 60 journals in their rating system based on feedback from researchers. The move affects notable publishers like MDPI, Wiley, and Frontiers, impacting researchers' publication decisions. JUFO emphasizes transparency and peer review quality, advocating for community feedback in assessing publication credibility.
Read original articleA panel of scholars in Finland has downgraded 60 journals in their quality rating system after receiving feedback from researchers. The Finnish Publication Forum (JUFO) assesses journals based on transparency, editorial board expertise, and peer review quality to aid academics in evaluating publication credibility. JUFO's classification ranges from 3 (supreme-level) to 1 (legitimate publication), with level 0 indicating exclusion from the ranking. The move may impact researchers' decisions on where to publish, as Finland's university funding model considers JUFO ratings. Notable publishers affected include MDPI, Wiley, and Frontiers. JUFO's decision to downgrade these journals follows a call for negative experiences to re-evaluate their ranking system. While some publishers expressed disappointment, JUFO stands by its assessment process. The initiative highlights the importance of community feedback in assessing publication quality and advocates for a shift towards researcher-driven quality metrics.
Related
The case for criminalizing scientific misconduct · Chris Said
The article argues for criminalizing scientific misconduct, citing cases like Sylvain Lesné's fake research. It proposes Danish-style committees and federal laws to address misconduct effectively, emphasizing accountability and public trust protection.
Mozilla.ai did what? When silliness goes dangerous
Mozilla.ai, a Mozilla Foundation project, faced criticism for using biased statistical models to summarize qualitative data, leading to doubts about its scientific rigor and competence in AI. The approach was deemed ineffective and compromised credibility.
It's Time for Progressives to Recommit to Academic Freedom
Progressive students advocate for academic freedom amidst concerns of voice suppression on campuses. Instances of censorship, particularly regarding pro-Palestinian activism, spark debates on protecting diverse viewpoints and intellectual discourse.
So Now the Feds Will Monitor Research Integrity?
The Biden administration forms a Scientific Integrity Task Force to monitor research integrity. Critics express concerns over proposed rule changes, citing persistent research misconduct issues amid increased government funding in universities.
Journal retracts all 23 articles in special issue
A journal retracted 23 articles from a special issue due to compromised peer review. Guest editor Abbas Mardani didn't comment. Authors criticized lack of transparency and faced consequences. Publisher Springer mentioned ongoing investigations.
Related
The case for criminalizing scientific misconduct · Chris Said
The article argues for criminalizing scientific misconduct, citing cases like Sylvain Lesné's fake research. It proposes Danish-style committees and federal laws to address misconduct effectively, emphasizing accountability and public trust protection.
Mozilla.ai did what? When silliness goes dangerous
Mozilla.ai, a Mozilla Foundation project, faced criticism for using biased statistical models to summarize qualitative data, leading to doubts about its scientific rigor and competence in AI. The approach was deemed ineffective and compromised credibility.
It's Time for Progressives to Recommit to Academic Freedom
Progressive students advocate for academic freedom amidst concerns of voice suppression on campuses. Instances of censorship, particularly regarding pro-Palestinian activism, spark debates on protecting diverse viewpoints and intellectual discourse.
So Now the Feds Will Monitor Research Integrity?
The Biden administration forms a Scientific Integrity Task Force to monitor research integrity. Critics express concerns over proposed rule changes, citing persistent research misconduct issues amid increased government funding in universities.
Journal retracts all 23 articles in special issue
A journal retracted 23 articles from a special issue due to compromised peer review. Guest editor Abbas Mardani didn't comment. Authors criticized lack of transparency and faced consequences. Publisher Springer mentioned ongoing investigations.