In this letter to #Scientometrics, 27 members of the Distinguished Reviewer Board criticize what they perceive as a scandalous retraction of an article by Macháček/Srholec on predatory publishing, following a complaint by the publisher #Frontiers.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-022-04565-6
Retraction Watch documented how the complaint by #Frontiers led Scientometrics' editor in chief to retract the article based on what I consider to be strawman arguments lacking a scientific basis. Consider RT.
I must say, all of this came as a deep shock to me and I hope we can now engage in fruitful work to strengthen our editorial processes.
Pinging people who have written only related topics:
@TBroekel@twitter.com @PaoloCrosetto@twitter.com @pgomba@twitter.com @JMiorner@twitter.com
@TorbenSchubert Wow, that's quite a story that I hadn't seen until now (Go Mastodon for keeping me current!). Some coauthors and I were preparing a paper to submit to Scientometrics, and this is giving me pause...
@thekazath nonetheless, I would not discourage sending your work to Scientometrics. It is still a leading outlet in science metrics. As far as I can see the journal has made an effort to analyze and reflect upon what has gone wrong and is trying to take measures to improve things. Even if it took persistence from us in the distinguished reviewer board, I think this is also reflected in the decision to publish our letter.
@thekazath yes, it is. And it turned out as a farce in so many respects. I was just happy that in our board there was a critical mass of people willing to stand up.