Difference between revisions of "Recent News"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
'''[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00335-7 Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse.]''' I put this here because K-C Chou wrote <b>many</b> papers with and appears to have been a mentor to Bin Liu, who plagiarized our gkm-SVM paper as described in the several items below. Eleven papers co-authored by Bin Liu and K-C Chou were (self-)cited in the paper which plagiarized our gkm-SVM paper. See also the original reporting from '''[https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/35/18/3217/5304360 Bioinformatics]''' and '''[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320300278?via%3Dihub Journal of Theoretical Biology.]''' I'm glad K-C Chou finally got called out on his gross citation manipulation, but the problem is broader than just these two journals. Although K-C Chou was removed, his proteges were and still are on the boards of many other journals and continue their citation inflation through mechanisms not discussed in these articles. For example, these articles do not mention that the authors who added the ~30 citations to K-C Chou during the review process were probably also explicitly promised future citations from K-C Chou in return. | '''[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00335-7 Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse.]''' I put this here because K-C Chou wrote <b>many</b> papers with and appears to have been a mentor to Bin Liu, who plagiarized our gkm-SVM paper as described in the several items below. Eleven papers co-authored by Bin Liu and K-C Chou were (self-)cited in the paper which plagiarized our gkm-SVM paper. See also the original reporting from '''[https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/35/18/3217/5304360 Bioinformatics]''' and '''[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320300278?via%3Dihub Journal of Theoretical Biology.]''' I'm glad K-C Chou finally got called out on his gross citation manipulation, but the problem is broader than just these two journals. Although K-C Chou was removed, his proteges were and still are on the boards of many other journals and continue their citation inflation through mechanisms not discussed in these articles. For example, these articles do not mention that the authors who added the ~30 citations to K-C Chou during the review process were probably also explicitly promised future citations from K-C Chou in return. | ||
| − | The scientific publishing industry has been manipulated by their lack of attention to these problems. If they want to investigate, all they have to do is look at who cited '''[https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/43/W1/W65/2467922 this absolutely useless paper]''' over '''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=Pse-in-One%3A+a+web+server+for+generating+various+modes+of+pseudo+components+of+DNA%2C+RNA%2C+and+protein+sequences&btnG= 600 times]'''. You may notice a pattern. None of these papers are real and each of these journals allowed it to | + | The scientific publishing industry has been manipulated by their lack of attention to these problems. If they want to investigate, all they have to do is look at who cited '''[https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/43/W1/W65/2467922 this absolutely useless paper]''' over '''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=Pse-in-One%3A+a+web+server+for+generating+various+modes+of+pseudo+components+of+DNA%2C+RNA%2C+and+protein+sequences&btnG= 600 times]'''. You may notice a pattern. None of these papers are real and each of these journals allowed it to happen for $ome unknown rea$on$. The list of these journals is clear from the citation patterns. |
'''[https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/20/over-a-dozen-board-members-resigned-after-a-journal-refused-to-retract-a-paper-today-its-retracted/ Scientific Reports finally retracts paper plagiarizing our gkm-SVM paper.]''' '''[http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1386 related article]''' | '''[https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/20/over-a-dozen-board-members-resigned-after-a-journal-refused-to-retract-a-paper-today-its-retracted/ Scientific Reports finally retracts paper plagiarizing our gkm-SVM paper.]''' '''[http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1386 related article]''' | ||
Revision as of 01:39, 28 October 2021
Beer Lab awarded IGVF Consortium Grant.
Wang awarded Bae Gyo Jung JHU Young Investigator Day Award. also here.
Jin-Woo, Wang, and Dustin selected for talks at 2021 ENCODE Consortium Meeting.
Wang discovered Enhancer-Promoter interaction prediction is harder than it looks.
Dustin leads integrative analysis of CAGI5 regulation saturation challenge.
Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse. I put this here because K-C Chou wrote many papers with and appears to have been a mentor to Bin Liu, who plagiarized our gkm-SVM paper as described in the several items below. Eleven papers co-authored by Bin Liu and K-C Chou were (self-)cited in the paper which plagiarized our gkm-SVM paper. See also the original reporting from Bioinformatics and Journal of Theoretical Biology. I'm glad K-C Chou finally got called out on his gross citation manipulation, but the problem is broader than just these two journals. Although K-C Chou was removed, his proteges were and still are on the boards of many other journals and continue their citation inflation through mechanisms not discussed in these articles. For example, these articles do not mention that the authors who added the ~30 citations to K-C Chou during the review process were probably also explicitly promised future citations from K-C Chou in return. The scientific publishing industry has been manipulated by their lack of attention to these problems. If they want to investigate, all they have to do is look at who cited this absolutely useless paper over 600 times. You may notice a pattern. None of these papers are real and each of these journals allowed it to happen for $ome unknown rea$on$. The list of these journals is clear from the citation patterns.
Scientific Reports finally retracts paper plagiarizing our gkm-SVM paper. related article
Don't do this: plagiarism1 plagiarism2 plagiarism3 plagiarism4 plagiarism5
JHU Newsletter article on our ENCODE grant by Anna Chen
NHGRI on next phase of ENCODE project consortium
Beer Lab awarded NIH ENCODE grant
Our computational work featured in Nature news article on "The Dark Side of the Human Genome"
New R package for gkmSVM and deltaSVM released
gkmSVM among top-scoring methods for CAGI4 eQTL prediction challenge
deltaSVM paper voted Top 10 in Regulatory Genomics 2015
Nature Genetics News & Views article on our deltaSVM paper
Nature Genetics paper on impact of regulatory variants
Newsweek article on Mouse ENCODE paper
Mouse ENCODE Consortium paper in Nature
Beer Lab awarded NIH grant for regulatory contributions to disease.
Beer Lab improves methodology for predicting disease enabling genetic mutations.
kmer-SVM Genome Research paper voted Top 10 in Regulatory Genomics.