you mean retracted ones?

That said, bad-faith authors might ignore comments and continue citing [their own] discredited preprints.

1. Med/Phys Nobel prize winners highlighted >10 times independently in my bluesky feed today 2. The last french Med/Phys Nobel prize winner was an anti-vax who claimed covid was engineered from HIV Maybe rather introduce optogenetics to the non-specialist?

heu, quelles disciplines? Pour moi les seuls journaux qui des temps d'attente <1 mois sont les MDPI et MDPI-like (genre npj)

I'm in search of additional, objective quality criteria for journals/publishers, besides the corrupted IF; willingness to quickly retract obviously problematic studies could be one; you guys have this info

As Thomas was saying some retractions are honest; everybody can make mistakes; acknowledging instead of hiding is good behavior; that should not be penalized I guess

I was thinking about assessing publishers, not authors, but yeah probably at some point one should accept this is part of one's CV

might appear naive, but I would dare to say that, at least in my field, many scientists, including some in position of power, do care about quality

until retraction/report ratio becomes a metrics (?)

Thanks. I wish whistleblowers pooled their data on how publishers reacted to reports.

This graph feels super important. Have you ever reported to Oxford University press?

true

good move - even if the threshold is a bit too high for my taste