May I inquire why you care about your Google Scholar h-index? Is it used for something at your university?

Also curious that Mark Young, 17th of 22 authors, fielded all the responses. A curious author arrangement.

Not my field, but Mark Young’s response blaming PLOS for garbling 43 references stood out. Unlikely. I only published in PLOS Once, but found their lack of copy editing refreshing. The only errors in the publication were ours. In every other journal, the publisher introduced more than they fixed.

A ‘joke’: Paper with ‘completely irrelevant’ citations retracted A paper that made the rounds last year for its blatantly “irrelevant” citations has now been retracted.  Elsevier’s International Journal of Hydrogen Energy published “Origin of the distinct s…

Brings to mind the case where the authors called out the reviewers by adding the citations even though they were ‘completely irrelevant to the present work.’ The authors were rewarded with a retraction for that retractionwatch.com/2025/04/09/i...

Beautiful. So different from the North American robins.

One way to get an article incorrectly paired to one’s GS profile is to manually upload it. That’s manipulating the system, obviously. Maybe I’ll try it with something ridiculous, just to see if there are side rails. Anyone heard of GS truly matching a paper to a profile with no shared names?

I can see book chapter attributions getting screwed up in GS because metadata is complex and GS could stumble parsing it if the publisher didn’t list metadata as expected. And GS has a hard time with ambiguous names, institution changes and such. But a journal article with no names in common?

Intended pubpeer link? Link was about overstated claims of self-importance, not made up references.
And thanks for doing The Original Science Publishing Integrity Advent Calendar. It’s fun.

“What is the benefit of publising so many Letters?”
I think your chart shows it all.

Depths of Wikipedia profile next to Ashley Judd! Depths of Celebrity!

Repost of a 3 mo old article, from August 5, 2025. Still, the comments give an interesting picture on how literate, non-scientists (mostly) view the situation. Carl Zimmer’s (the writer) responses to the comments were solid-a writer worth keeping an eye out for.

Congratulations for all your thankless muckraking!

Wow. I used to live in Seattle near Fort Lawton, got married at the Daybreak Star Center, have now lived in Idaho for 30 years and I learn of Edna Paisano from an Australian blogger. Thank you for your digging and this post!

I only know ScholarOne. It definitely does not know the difference between a bad email bounce and non-replies.

Makes me wonder if computer science and machine learning journals are particularly targeted because they use tortured language anyway. Reminds me of the SciGen generated computer sci sounding gibberish from 10y+ ago that got past real reviewers into conferences.

Don’t know any firsthand accounts, but there are lots of little far flung, extremely rural communities in the American west that don’t have cell service or broadband internet, and still use dialup. Idaho in my case, but there are lots of these little hamlets. I’d guess that’s where AOL lived on.

Looking through the linked FBS and RW posts: “Bik had reported the Oncogene papers to the journal in 2019. In February 2024, Bik sought an update and Springer Nature told her the investigation was still ongoing. “
Wow.

“I want to hit this person with a chair so very very much”

No jury would convict.

I concur. PLOS also publishes the article review and revision history. So not just highly selective journals out of reach to most ECRs. Few people likely ever look at it, but transparency is good both for reassurance, and for showing problems on those papers drawing negative scrutiny after the fact.

Of course Microsoft Word has an enabled by default automatic change of short dashes to em dashes.

They weren’t troubled by ethical approval for that either

Noooo! There are chemicals everywhere! I just bought an electric tea kettle and I was alarmed to read that it contains CHEMICALS! Including IRON! No kettle is safe!

Totally off topic, but I was sorry to see a link in the RW daily email that you were being sued for defamation by Shadi Aljawarneh because you pointed out he was a farmer. A citation farmer, that is. Even meritless SLAPP suits are a hassle and expense, so I hope the jurisdiction allows recovery.

Were you deeply impressed?

Published PowerPoint presentations, there’s a CV filler

Remarkable they have no institutional controls to catch this. Or don’t want to. I think Chemosphere had an incredible JIF of 8 or so before Clarivate cancelled them. At least the don’t have to worry about being cancelled from Scopus.

As an author, ScholarOne file uploads are a pain, figures have to be uploaded individually, captioning seldom works. Submitting a manuscript or revisions takes hours. I’ve seen better, but they seem to be proprietary to specific publishers.

Yeah, Clarivate’s ScholarOne still has an early 2000s feel to it. The OUP journal I edit for uses it. It definitely should have let you upload a review file, something glitched. As an editor, reviewer selections are a mess- can’t update emails, have to create a new entry. So you get multiple entries

Are 12 mo fixed term contracts common in the publishing industry? Are these then customarily renewed? I can’t imagine many strong candidates would want a 1-year gig

Not familiar with Nature/Springer’s service, but looks like Clarivate’s ScholarOne service lags. It only reports “under review” and doesn’t distinguish between the editorial office, editor, seeking reviewers, waiting on reviewers, waiting for decision. Elsevier’s screenshot looks lan improvement