# Springer Journal Retracts 44 “Earth Science” Papers as “Utter Nonsense” **URL:** \ **Category:** Context\ **Tags:** oops, springer, peer-review, earth-science\ **Created:** [10 November 2021 13:20 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/springer-journal-retracts-44-earth-science-papers-as-utter-nonsense/339 "2021-11-10T13:20:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![johnwalker](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/johnwalker/32/17415_2.png) [@johnwalker](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/johnwalker)\ **Post date:** [10 November 2021 13:20 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/springer-journal-retracts-44-earth-science-papers-as-utter-nonsense/339/1 "2021-11-10T13:20:46Z")
_[Retraction Watch](https://retractionwatch.com/)_ reports “[Springer Nature geosciences journal retracts 44 articles filled with gibberish](https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/04/springer-nature-geosciences-journal-retracts-44-articles-filled-with-gibberish)” published in the _[Arabian Journal of Geosciences](https://www.springer.com/journal/12517)_ in 2021. Titles of some of the papers were distinctly odd, including: - [Monitoring and early warning of loess landslide based on distributed environment and effectiveness calculation of physical training](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-021-08728-2) - [Neural network–based urban rainfall trend estimation and adolescent anxiety management](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-021-08732-6) - [The characteristics of rainfall in coastal areas and the intelligent library book push system oriented to the Internet of Things](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-021-08704-w) - [Distribution of earthquake activity in mountain area based on embedded system and physical fitness detection of basketball](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-021-08804-7) Many of the papers listed the affiliation of their “authors” with Chinese universities. Here is a [complete list of the retracted papers](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Arabian-Journal-of-Geosciences-retractions.pdf). One retraction notice read: > The Editor-in-Chief and the Publisher have retracted this article because the content of this article is nonsensical. The peer review process was not carried out in accordance with the Publisher’s peer review policy. The author has not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction. The director of “research integrity” at Springer Nature said: > Fully investigating the unethical practices that we have recently identified in four guest-edited issues is an absolute priority for us. We have completed rapid investigations of 44 individual papers whilst following COPE guidelines, and these papers have been retracted. Investigations into the other papers in these issues are ongoing but we expect to complete them in the near future. > > We will not tolerate deliberate attempts to subvert the publication process. As previously stated, we are developing new AI and other-tech based tools and putting additional checks in place to identify and prevent attempts of deliberate manipulation. We are also supporting our Editors in Chief in handling guest-edited issues and increasing publisher oversight to ensure that our policies and best practice are adhered to. Moreover, we are gathering evidence into how these subversions are being carried out to share with other publishers, COPE, relevant institutions and other agencies to help inform the development of industry-wide practices and ensure that culpable parties can be held to account. Springer Nature charges authors an “[article processing charge](https://www.springer.com/journal/12517/open-access-publishing#Fees%20and%20Funding)” of US$ 2,780 to publish a paper in this journal. The [subscription fee](https://resource-cms.springernature.com/springer-cms/rest/v1/content/19740184/data/v3) [XLSX] for this journal for “Institutional price print plus enhanced access USD” is US$8,262 per volume of 24 issues. Let’s hear it for “peer review”! ---
**Author:** ![civilwestman](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/civilwestman/32/25_2.png) [@civilwestman](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/civilwestman)\ **Post date:** [10 November 2021 14:53 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/springer-journal-retracts-44-earth-science-papers-as-utter-nonsense/339/2 "2021-11-10T14:53:03Z")
The _Journal of Irreproducible Results_ has potential to easily become the physically largest journal in existence. Of all the institutions which have been corrupted, peer-reviewed science may well cause the most long term damage. How many papers, for example, fail to glowingly confirm global warming the extreme toxicity of second-hand smoke, or the non-transmission of Covid at left wing protests. You get the idea. ---
**Author:** ![Gavin](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/439d5e/32.png) [@Gavin](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/Gavin)\ **Post date:** [10 November 2021 15:45 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/springer-journal-retracts-44-earth-science-papers-as-utter-nonsense/339/3 "2021-11-10T15:45:48Z")
“_Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth_” by Stuart Ritchie is not a great book, but he does a good job of explaining the dysfunctional nature of the scientific literature – in particular, the unholy cycle between gross numbers of publications and grant awards from government bureaucracies in a self-reinforcing loop. Apparently, the pressures on Chinese scientists to publish or perish are even stronger than in the West. It seems that the more people know about the sausage factory of “peer review”, the less impressed they are by it. Rather like government. ---
**Author:** ![Roxie](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/roxie/32/128_2.png) [@Roxie](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/Roxie)\ **Post date:** [10 November 2021 16:04 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/springer-journal-retracts-44-earth-science-papers-as-utter-nonsense/339/4 "2021-11-10T16:04:26Z")
> [@Gavin](#): > > the sausage factory of “peer review Thank you, especially for this phrasing/moniker. ---
**Author:** ![ra\_montesano](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/ra_montesano/32/117_2.png) [@ra\_montesano](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/ra_montesano)\ **Post date:** [10 November 2021 18:58 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/springer-journal-retracts-44-earth-science-papers-as-utter-nonsense/339/5 "2021-11-10T18:58:04Z")
A pear review beets a peer review. ---
**Author:** ![ra\_montesano](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/ra_montesano/32/117_2.png) [@ra\_montesano](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/ra_montesano)\ **Post date:** [11 November 2021 15:18 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/springer-journal-retracts-44-earth-science-papers-as-utter-nonsense/339/6 "2021-11-11T15:18:11Z")
Rewrite: For too many journals today, a pear review beets a peer review!