[roel_v]

Thank you for writing this. Your examples were lethargic. I know I should stay away from the 'academia is broken duh duh' threads here but I get sucked into them anyway. They're always full of armchair experts who don't know anything about universities or research except from being students or at best junior researchers and then think this makes them experts on the matter.

But the article itself had that same vibe for me, especially with how cock sure it is that the 'questionable research practices' are 'fraud'. I mean, come on - someone making up the responses of a 500 people questionnaire; yes that I could call 'fraud'. But not being included as an author on a paper, or being included when you didn't contribute that much? I've been in both situations and in some cases, I was completely fine with it; in others I was a bit miffed (mostly because of the same interpersonal frictions that happen everywhere where people work together) - but in none of those I would call it anywhere near 'fraud' or even 'dishonest'. Yes, there exist people who pay 1 or 2 people to write papers for them and then publish those papers with themselves as the only author. Again, that I would call 'fraud'. But the 99.9% of other cases - not even close. Just like because there is one billionaire underage sex trafficer, doesn't mean all of them are and that 'the system' is 'broken'.

And this is how I, again, got sucked into a completely non-productive 'discussion' that is so far removed from reality so as to be completely irrelevant anyway...

[webmaven]

> But not being included as an author on a paper, or being included when you didn't contribute that much? I've been in both situations and in some cases, I was completely fine with it; in others I was a bit miffed (mostly because of the same interpersonal frictions that happen everywhere where people work together) - but in none of those I would call it anywhere near 'fraud' or even 'dishonest'.

As I understand it, ghosting becomes a more significant issue when it enables the omitted author to peer-review their co-authors' papers (and vice-versa) without disclosure of the conflict of interest.

[roel_v]

shrug Sure, theoretically, but someone who wants to ensure a positive review can just as easily collude with someone who didn't do any of the work. And then still - yes it's possible that a completely bogus paper gets signed off on by a dishonest conspirator, but the editor should see the discrepancy between that and the reviews of the other authors, and dig deeper. But the real problems start in the grey zone; like when you're on the fence between 'reject' and 'major revisions'. There is no 'objective' truth there and quite honestly as an author it's a crap shoot and always has been. It sucks the first few times it happens but none of leads to 'peer review being broken'.

[nl]

To add to this - there are plenty of issues with peer review, but someone deliberately avoiding an authorship so they can peer review seems low down the list of real world problems.