Google’s journal about artificial intelligence (AI) coming from editors and authors associated with Google and Google Brain raises questions about conflicts, vanity publishing, and Google as a media company.
With a new partnership with F1000, Wellcome embraces sketchy peer review standards, deep conflicts of interest, and financial support of a private, commercial enterprise. Worse, the entire thing seems redundant, avoidable, and unnecessary.
It’s a question that has lurked around the edges of our campfire for a while — what if publishers paid authors of research papers? Quickly, it becomes clear why this is very unlikely to happen — for financial, ethical, and practical reasons.
The pursuit of transparency and use of disclosures in place of actual ethics may be creating a culture of accommodation rather than one fostering independence. Where does transparency belong?
Creating a centralized database for disclosing conflicts of interest (COI) is an easy sell. Deciding who is responsible and accountable for its funding and support is a much harder problem.
One of the layers of impropriety regarding PubMed Central’s handling of eLife is its mismanagement of conflicts of interest.
Funder-sponsored journals raise important conflict of interest questions, and may be fundamentally untenable in an industry that requires independent third-party evaluation of research reports.
A major economics association establishes conflict of interest and disclosure rules for its publications, expecting others to follow. But is the lateness of these rules reassuring, or maddening?