Because of academic or research pressure, the number of papers and publishers are increasing. At the same time, the quality of the papers from even Q1 journals is also not up to the mark. A lot of journals having some "circle" like environment to maintain their citation. Some of the concepts spread by some leading researchers in a field also sometimes went wrong. Most of them not willing to correct themselves. Most of the author of a paper never discuss the limitations of the paper may because of publication pressure. It is hard for a new researcher to find what is correct and what is wrong. Is there is any platform where we can discuss and publish our own idea and get a review from different experts in a blind or a direct way? If such a platform exists, we can learn where we can apply a method and the limitations of different methods. The most important thing is: if we make mistakes in our work we can correct and update our papers in that platform so that there will be a positive slope in the progress of a field. I prefer a forum (similar to stack) kind of platform discussing a paper we publish so that we can get review from multiple researchers over time. Please inform me, if any such plot form exits in the field of numerical methods or computational fluid dynamics or fluid dynamics.
I think that the only way to correct previous papers is to publish the new discover, if possible in the same journal, addressing the issues, proposing the improvement and so on.
I agree that the present circle of publication method can be debated...
Dear Filippo Maria Denaro,
I think such kind of ethics not happening in our field. let say "B" is a researcher and having a good relationship with other researchers. Accidentally B made some mistakes in his work and published but he does not want to reveal that. Since B is having a good circle and reviewer in some journals, he managed to get more citations. Because of the number of citation, that concept becomes active in the community and started blindly followed by a lot of researchers. That is leading to the wrong direction.
As you mentioned, correction or improvement should be carried by the same researcher who proposed that. As far I as know a very few researchers doing that. I personally believe publication is now becoming like a business. It can be monetary or non-monetary. I like to share all the works that I carried for the last few years in one platform to improve or correct it. Please give me some suggestion for that.
Dear Arun Govind Neelan
the only way to break this circle is to have the force to intercept the attention of the readers of such journals. If you have reached new results, correcting previous works, I strongly suggest to submit to the journal your paper using the title “A note on the ....” and addressing the paper you want to correct.
Hopefully, you will find good independent reviewers (in the subsmission process you can suggest the name) and get what you want.
Differently, many open access journals are classified as predatory ....
Neelan, you are correct that it is difficult to make sense out of the wide spreading concepts in the literature. However, I encourage you to be positive and open-minded when seeing `incorrect' information in the literature. I believe that most of the times, it is simply because people have different opinions. After all, `debate' is part of research. See `Mathis et al. J. Fluid Mech., 2011' and `Schlatter and Orlu, Phys. Fluid, 2011' for example. Any publication represents an upfront but not ultimate understanding. We cannot require all the physical understandings documented three decades ago to be correct.
To my knowledge, Physical Review Fluids has the `crossmark' system, where the authors can easily update/correct their published paper.
To get review comments from experts, you may either contact the expert in person for collaboration, or simply submit your manuscript to a high-quality journal.
Dear Filippo Maria Denaro,
I personally don't like to publish some topics abused by different researchers. I don't think I can publish something like that even if I wish. I'm struggling to publish some of the other works that I like to publish. Few times that is rejected because I'm not ready to accept some predatory schemes or analysis. Most of the reviews that I received even from leading journals are worse than the reviews that I received for some conferences.
I hope some of the finding like: proof for the reduction in the order of FVM on bad meshes, issues of conservative discretization on non-uniform meshes, Some better reconstruction procedures for problem involving shocks, generalized finite difference method etc. may be useful for others that I like to put in some open access sites and to get review. Regarding, "contradictory" methods, I will open new questions in the forum.
Thank you.
Dear Xingjun Fang,
I completely agree with you. Research is like an evolutionary algorithm, should have samples from different opinion. Some researchers like to keep their concepts alive but they are unable to defend it or improve it. The sample size of such "concepts" should be low. Because of publicity and networks, they are making it as a "business". They abuse the present system and try to make more publications and forcing others to cite their work through reviews. Though it is unethical, sadly this is followed even in Q1 journals (I have personal experiences in it). They are surviving because once that is published no one can question them. I like to have a better system and like to support such a system.
Thank you.
- Badges
- Science topic