[E. Pluribus Unum]

"We don't need no peer review. We've got CONSENSUS." --Global Warming Enthusiasts

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

Science deniers?

[LS]

This comes after 10 years ago a study found that 2/3 of the “established studies” and accepted research either partially or wholly could not be replicated.

[kinsman redeemer]

... from the article, "Springer declined to name the articles or journals involved. "

Hmmmm...

[Fhios]

I don’t think this is the first time getting caught for them.

[TexasCajun]

Sounds like the Obama's Iran deal.

...letting Iran inspect themselves.

[JimSEA]

One of the comments following the Nature article shows a big assist the Journals themselves are giving fraudulent authors.

“The journals should stop asking for reviewers names when the author submits their paper. Some journals don’t let you go to next step until you enter some names.”

This is a big problem inviting fraud.

[angryoldfatman]

But but but SCIENCE, PEOPLE! SCIIIIIIENCE!!!

[NonValueAdded]

That settles it. ;)

[JoeFromSidney]

The practice can occur when researchers submitting a paper for publication suggest reviewers,

That's one of the functions of journal editors, to select reviewers themselves. They're supposed to know who are the experts relative to the article being reviewed.

I spent 40 years as Associate Editor of a major international journal. Knowing who the appropriate reviewers were was part of my job.

[Rebelbase]

I long for the day where the wholesale corruption of science is met with tar and feathers.

[JPG]

[Rockpile]

But the sweet part is that

They recant the grant.