Retraction Watch is a science watchdog that may give the impression of being both an anti-bad science and an anti-science blog. This blog has tried to legitimize its ethical stance by naming its parent organization The Center for Science Integrity Inc. (CSI), and by appointing a former Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Elizabeth Wager, to the CSI board of directors. Jeffrey Beall, another science watchdog, often appears in public alongside Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, the CSI secretary and president, respectively, and participates in events with Wager. Beall became academically redundant on January 15, 2017. This is because his blog, which hosted a faulty, controversial and misleading list (and thus potentially libelous) of “predatory” open access journals and publishers, suddenly went blank. Beall offered no apology or explanation to the public, but was offered intellectual asylum and protection by the University of Colorado, Denver, where he works as a librarian. After a grace period of almost two months, members of the global academic community have now largely lost respect for Beall because of his silence, which may be equated with irresponsibility and/or cowardice. Despite this near extinct academic status, Retraction Watch continues to laud Beall, refer to his now-defunct site and lists as valid, as many as 25 times, and even rely on the Beall blog and lists to support several of their journalistic claims. In the world of science publishing, the legitimization of a “fact” using a defunct or false (i.e., non-factual) source, is equivalent to publishing misconduct, and feeds into the “false facts” and “alternative truths” epidemic in journalism that Retraction Watch is now impregnating into science publishing. Why then is Retraction Watch allowed to operate under an ethically superior platform, while expecting scientists and academics to respect basic rules of citing valid references, but while practicing suspect or unethical citation practices? This attitude undermines the ethical publishing foundation of the CSI, the CSI directors, and Retraction Watch as a reliable “journalistic” source of information, undermining trust and respect in this blog, while emphasizing its biased nature.

中文翻译：

---

为什么Retraction Watch继续为Jeffrey Beall提供支持，并使他的事后“掠夺性”名单合法化？

Retraction Watch是一个科学监督机构，可能给人以反坏科学和反科学博客的印象。该博客试图通过命名其上级组织科学诚信中心（CSI），并任命前出版道德委员会（COPE）主席伊丽莎白·瓦格（Elizabeth Wager）担任CSI董事会，以使其道德立场合法化。另一位科学监督者Jeffrey Beall经常与CSI秘书兼总裁Adam Marcus和Ivan Oransky一起公开露面，并与Wager一起参加活动。比尔于2017年1月15日在学术上变得多余。这是因为他的博客突然出现了空白，该博客包含“掠夺性”开放获取期刊和出版商的错误，有争议和误导性列表（因此可能是诽谤性的）。比尔没有向公众道歉或作出任何解释，但是他在丹佛市的科罗拉多大学担任图书馆馆员时得到了智力庇护和保护。在经历了将近两个月的宽限期之后，全球学术界的成员现在由于对Beall的沉默而在很大程度上失去了对Beall的尊重，这可能等同于不负责任和/或怯equ。尽管学术地位近乎灭绝，但Retraction Watch仍然称赞Beall，称其现已失效的网站和列表有效，多达25次，甚至依靠Beall博客和列表来支持他们的一些新闻主张。在科学出版界，使用不存在或虚假（即非事实）来源的“事实”合法化等同于发布不当行为，并将其纳入新闻学中的“虚假事实”和“另类真理”流行病，而《 Retraction Watch》现在正将其渗透到科学出版中。为什么在允许科学家和学者尊重引用有效参考文献的基本规则，却实践可疑或不道德的引用行为的同时，又允许Retraction Watch在道德上优越的平台下运行？这种态度破坏了CSI，CSI董事和Retraction Watch作为可靠的“新闻”信息源的道德出版基础，破坏了对该博客的信任和尊重，同时强调了其偏颇的性质。期望科学家和学者尊重引用有效参考文献的基本规则，但同时又实践可疑或不道德的引用行为？这种态度破坏了CSI，CSI董事和Retraction Watch作为可靠的“新闻”信息源的道德出版基础，破坏了对该博客的信任和尊重，同时强调了其偏颇的性质。期望科学家和学者尊重引用有效参考文献的基本规则，但同时又实践可疑或不道德的引用行为？这种态度破坏了CSI，CSI董事和Retraction Watch作为可靠的“新闻”信息源的道德出版基础，破坏了对该博客的信任和尊重，同时强调了其偏颇的性质。