[gostsamo]

Almost hoped for an analysis about what, how, and why happened, but it turns out that Elsevier has little to do with the story and the author had a Twitter spat with someone years ago and is now celebrating the fact that the other side has been shown to do what? for which some of their papers had been retracted. Yes, I'm as confused.

[uniqueuid]

Publishers have the final say in appointing editors in chief (EIC) and editors. So they bear the ultimate responsibility for holding editors accountable.

A lot of people are to blame here, but Elsevier is definitely among them.

[gostsamo]

I get it, but the post is literally "I don't like this guy, he has fucked up, I'm happy". Elsevier is mentioned mostly to explain from how high the guy has fallen. Not a single line about what is the issue with those papers, what does it say about the field, nor about the policies that are compromised by it. Nor it explains how Elsevier is affected from all of this and what will change.

It is a personal shitpost and I'm not sure what is interesting about it.

[qsi]

Elsevier editor published his own papers in the Elsevier journal bypassing peer review.

[gostsamo]

There are three magazines involved so this is only part of the story.

[qsi]

Well, I was in a rush writing that. I omitted the fact that not only did he publish his own papers bypassing peer review, he also set up a citation mill with a number of other Elsevier journals and was apparently involved in other shady business. It's detailed in the article... There is a personal component to it, but that's a very minor part of the article which documents the various misdeeds.

[efreak]

> It's detailed in the article...

I had to go back and re read the article. This blog has a rather generic design on mobile, with one big glaring flaw: in the middle of the article there's a picture (I didn't look at this, I usually ignore images and this I've does a good job of blending into the dark background as part of the styling), a quote, a subscription button, and a button to leave a comment - all at a natural stopping point for a short blog post, which usually implies you've reached the end. It also happened to be at the bottom of my screen given the way I scrolled.

If you read it as I did initially, it simply looks like a post by someone pointing out that someone they don't like had some trouble.

[boxed]

All three journals are Elsevier owned. Do try to keep up.

[boxed]

> Not a single line about what is the issue with those papers

Well that's a blatant lie. Here's a quote for you:

> After submitting that draft to the Elsevier finance ecosystem, that draft was scrubbed from SSRN, and in the final published version, an additional author (Samuel Vigne) was added as a new author, with an “equal contribution” statement

That's EXTREMELY BAD. It's someone approaching your team after the research is done and asking to be put on the paper in exchange for publishing it.

[Nevermark]

You are judging someone's post based on your expectations, only because they were "unlucky" enough to have their writing up voted here, and you had "hoped" for something they didn't write.

But, the internets' writers are not responsible for meeting your expectations.

Accept things for what they are. You can still bring up your points.

Without critiquing random people for not writing what you "hoped". That isn't a sensible standard.