Journal That Published Faulty Black Plastic Study Removed From Science Index

The publisher of a high-profile, now-corrected study on black plastics has been removed from a critical index of academic journals amid questions about quality criteria, according to a report by Retraction Watch. From a report: On December 16, Clarivate -- a scholarly publication analytics company -- removed the journal Chemosphere from its platform, the Web of Science, which is a key index for academic journals. The indexing platform tracks citations and calculates journal "impact factors," a proxy for relevance in its field. It's a critical metric not only for the journals but for the academic authors of the journal's articles, who use the score in their pursuit of promotions and research funding.

To be included in the Web of Science, Clarivate requires journals to follow editorial quality criteria. According to Retraction Watch, Chemosphere has retracted eight articles this month and published 60 expressions of concern since April. In a December 12 news release, Chemosphere acknowledged the quality concerns and laid out steps it will take to improve its editorial process. Those include improvements to article vetting and peer review, along with assurances that articles will be retracted if there's evidence of policy breaches. "We believe that these measures will help us regain the standard of research integrity that has always been so important to us," the news release stated.

Private company exploits event to raise profile

[narcc]

Why are we amplifying this?

This is stupid

[thegarbz]

The error was not only identified and publicly acknowledged, but it wasn't even part of the core research, it was just a reference to the EPA.

Re:

[Xenx]

It's not specifically about the black plastic study, but an apparent QC trend with the journal. I don't personally have the experience to determine whether the numbers reported for that journal are excessively high or not, so I cannot say whether the de-listing is being applied fairly or not.

Not just one article

[Roger W Moore]

The error was not only identified and publicly acknowledged, but it wasn't even part of the core research

It was core to the conclusion though - the level of exposure dropped from being almost equal to the safe exposure limit to being a tenth of it. Plus triviality of the error does raise some questions about the level of peer review the paper - when your error is getting spotted by random people on the web it does tend to raise questions like this! However, no matter how "bad", by itself it is just one isolated incident and I'd agree not enough to pull a journal since mistakes can always happen but overall they have had 8 retractions and 60 expressions of concern just since April which is a lot and does suggest they have some serious quality control issues with their peer review process.

Re:

[PsychoSlashDot]

The error was not only identified and publicly acknowledged, but it wasn't even part of the core research, it was just a reference to the EPA.

I mean... aside from that despite publicly acknowledging it also included "but hey, our being wrong doesn't change the conclusion of our paper" despite the math saying otherwise... sure.

Is this like the hydroxychloroquine paper?

[smooth wombat]

The study which said you could use horse paste to cure covid has been finally retracted [science.org]. In both cases standard scientific protocols weren't followed which resulted in shoddy work and erroneous conclusions.

Looks like the scientific community is doing its job by removing junk science.

Re:

[Black Parrot]

However, kindergartners are encourage to keep eating paste, in order to maintain their ancestral traditions.

Re:

[Rujiel]

It was ivermectin that got called "horse paste" (even tho it won a Nobel prize for its use in humans)

Re:

[TheMiddleRoad]

I think it's more that people were buying ivermectin meant for animals at their local feed stores since most doctors weren't stupid enough to give the human version to people. Because side effects: https://www.unmc.edu/healthsec... [unmc.edu]

Re:

[Rujiel]

First off my primary point was just that it wasn't hydroxychloroquine that received the horse paste monicker. But "Stupid enough"? Again, Ivermectine won a Nobel prize for its use in humans. In other countries like El Salvador it was provided with other vitamins as a care package for covid since they weren't given vaccines as readily as promised. I really don't even enjoy discussing this stuff vs. other topics, but the fearmongering around Ivermectin was some thought control applied purely in the US, as oth

Re:

[Rujiel]

Sorry, I misread your post as saying that they "were stupid enough" to provide it.

Re:

[hey!]

Well, yes, the 2015 Nobel Prize in medicine [nobelprize.org] was awarded for the discovery of ivermectin *to treat worm infections*. Ivermectin is absolutely a great drug for a helminth infection. That doesn't mean it's sensible to jump to the conclusion it's good for viruses.

Anti-parasitic drugs like ivermectin *are* perennial candidates for anti-viral use because they have potent physiological effects and often shut down viral replication in a petri dish. But that's a very low bar to pass; in the human body the dynamics

Re:

[Rujiel]

"It's not ivermectin fear-mongering to say that it's not a cure-all."
Yeah I agree, but I think the horse-pasts thing was fearmongering since the main caveat often referred to (mentioned by parent) is people taking the animal one by accident. The horse paste thing was funny at the time, I laughed at the Joe Rogan to horse Animorphs meme like anybody, but it wasn't ultimately very useful.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Ivermectin works great on parasites, no argument there. Viruses on the other hand...

Re:

[Retired Chemist]

Except alas, that retracted articles do not always disappear. They may still be found somewhere in searches or on the internet and used by people who either are not aware they have been retracted or do not care because they fit their preconceived conclusions.

Chemosphere

[Retired Chemist]

I remember reading Chemosphere many years ago. It did not impress me as a high-quality journal then.

\o/

[easyTree]

Wow - so it is possible to go 'too far' !

Who'd have thunk?

Re:

[Fly Swatter]

Brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

I know, it is the smartphone age and no one has the attention span beyond that of a flea, but even for me it wasn't hard to read and comprehend what has happened.

Spatulacalypse

[raminf]

What are we going to do with all these limp-ass kitchen utensils now?