Physics journal retracts underwater discharge paper for figure reuse

It seems to me that the authors have “just reused” some figures from their earlier publication but apparently without asking Andrey Starikovskiy. Im wondering about stuff like that. I think one could certainly invest the time to make their own figures. This makes me a bit suspicious if that was the true reason for the retraction.

Retraction Watch

A trio of researchers from the United States and China are in, um, hot water for inappropriately reusing figures that had appeared in previous publications about liquids.

The article, “Temporally resolved imaging on quenching and re-ignition of nanosecond underwater discharge,” appeared last year in AIP Advances, a title of the American Institute of Physics. The authors were Yong Yang, Young I. Cho and Alexander Fridman. Yang is from Huazhong University of Science and Technology, in Wuhan, and Cho and Fridman are at Drexel University, in Philadelphia.

Here’s the notice:

View original post 177 more words

Open access: The true cost of science publishing

A very interesting article dealing with the assumed and actual cost of publishing. This article touches upon a topic I find very interesting: Journal prestige (as value increasing factor) and its consequences for science. In my opinion the prestige of a journal (mostly based on its IF) is one of the reasons enabling non OA journals to stay in business. Everyone “wants/needs” to publish high impact and assumes that such articles are in general “better”.  The problem is its self fulfilling prophecy because papers in prestiges journals will be cited more often just because they are published in prestigious journals artificially inflating the “quality” of the work (#citations). But I might be wrong about it.

http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676