Sorry to hear all this, Richard. I'm a great admirer of your work and wish you well. The fact that Elsevier should behave like an abusive oligopolist is not particularly surprising. One can only hope that this insular, self-serving publishing model will die out, and Elsevier's lucrative business model will die with it.
"Our findings indicate that DF is highly instrumental in accelerating green growth in the studied nations, which can be conducive to attaining workhorse climate models that are sustenance and resilience and that facilitate environmental amelioration without decommissioning economic activities."
This is from the most cited work of 2024 in ex-your journal. I would call it word salad, because it is word salad. And this is exactly the value of your "impact factor," "diversity" and whatever other "achievements" of Energy Economics on your watch.
Well, the well-recognized frauds NA, RIL and AKT, who were on YOUR editorial board, are still there, and will drive the bibliometrics even higher up. More specialized predators demonstrate better survival, that's it.
Climate emergency is real. But so is green bullshit, which is what Energy Economics was and is about. Hard to have sympathy to all that, living in one of the most heavily affected regions of the planet.
Look. The last thing I am going to do is using non-public channels to contact a no-name who sits on the same editorial board with frauds. "Proper channels" stopped to work a while ago, naming and shaming still works.
Now, given that the nonsense happened on YOUR watch, don't be surprised if YOU are named and shamed. From the same source, btw, the impact is overflowing:
"Authors have explored the association in a profound manner (Chen et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2023a; Lang et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023; Lv et al., 2023; Mirza et al., 2023a, Mirza et al., 2023b, Mirza et al., 2023c; Xie et al., 2024; Zhong et al., 2024) “Sustainability transition and performance” has developed into an autonomous theme with a low-density value along with carbon dioxide utilization, commercialization; support system, sustainable entrepreneurship, profitability, ESG, and green economy as its sub-themes."
Thanks for detailing this Richard, and sorry. I stumbled upon this today via Bluesky. I am a journalist in the science misconduct space. Would be happy to speak with you about this any time. My website is www.jacksonwryan.com
I think what you disclosed about what is going wrong in the finance-journal world is very important, and many honest academics will find it quite disturbing. Could you give some more indication of which Elsevier finance editors and journals are implicated in these practices? It’s probably not all journals, but without more clarity, researchers risk unknowingly submitting to outlets whose reputation may later be seriously damaged. Providing this information would be extremely valuable...
Diversity = geographic diversity = publishing papers by authors who are not based in North America or Western Europe.
Energy Economics has an advantage over other economics journals, because energy is a necessary good and therefore economically more important in poorer countries. But we also beat journals in development and agriculture.
I do not care much about rankings -- but I am proud that we fostered economic excellence in Africa and Asia, that we found good researchers in unlikely places, and that we gained enough of their trust to submit their papers to us.
Sorry to hear all this, Richard. I'm a great admirer of your work and wish you well. The fact that Elsevier should behave like an abusive oligopolist is not particularly surprising. One can only hope that this insular, self-serving publishing model will die out, and Elsevier's lucrative business model will die with it.
"Our findings indicate that DF is highly instrumental in accelerating green growth in the studied nations, which can be conducive to attaining workhorse climate models that are sustenance and resilience and that facilitate environmental amelioration without decommissioning economic activities."
This is from the most cited work of 2024 in ex-your journal. I would call it word salad, because it is word salad. And this is exactly the value of your "impact factor," "diversity" and whatever other "achievements" of Energy Economics on your watch.
Well, the well-recognized frauds NA, RIL and AKT, who were on YOUR editorial board, are still there, and will drive the bibliometrics even higher up. More specialized predators demonstrate better survival, that's it.
Climate emergency is real. But so is green bullshit, which is what Energy Economics was and is about. Hard to have sympathy to all that, living in one of the most heavily affected regions of the planet.
Fourth-most cited, but alright.
If there is something wrong with the paper, besides a single awkward sentence, you should contact the editor-in-chief, Boqiang Lin.
Look. The last thing I am going to do is using non-public channels to contact a no-name who sits on the same editorial board with frauds. "Proper channels" stopped to work a while ago, naming and shaming still works.
Now, given that the nonsense happened on YOUR watch, don't be surprised if YOU are named and shamed. From the same source, btw, the impact is overflowing:
"Authors have explored the association in a profound manner (Chen et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2023a; Lang et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023; Lv et al., 2023; Mirza et al., 2023a, Mirza et al., 2023b, Mirza et al., 2023c; Xie et al., 2024; Zhong et al., 2024) “Sustainability transition and performance” has developed into an autonomous theme with a low-density value along with carbon dioxide utilization, commercialization; support system, sustainable entrepreneurship, profitability, ESG, and green economy as its sub-themes."
This is not the place.
I was ultimately responsible for publishing this paper.
There is nothing I can do now.
Naming and shaming on a little-read substack is not effective.
Take it to the publisher, the editor, or PubPeer.
PubPeer, as you suggested. https://pubpeer.com/publications/229DAD3F247F66D26F2C1F2D746D9D
Let it stay a bit there, until there comes time to collect stones.
Thanks for detailing this Richard, and sorry. I stumbled upon this today via Bluesky. I am a journalist in the science misconduct space. Would be happy to speak with you about this any time. My website is www.jacksonwryan.com
The name that comes to mind is Brian Lucey. I guess with his 12 retractions so far, it would be a rather good guess.
I think what you disclosed about what is going wrong in the finance-journal world is very important, and many honest academics will find it quite disturbing. Could you give some more indication of which Elsevier finance editors and journals are implicated in these practices? It’s probably not all journals, but without more clarity, researchers risk unknowingly submitting to outlets whose reputation may later be seriously damaged. Providing this information would be extremely valuable...
More details should follow later this year.
The EJMR threads show that a few people are rattled.
The debate has also reached EJMR: https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/editors-soliciting-financial-and-sexual-favours
Sorry, seeing any diversity card being played is a real turn-off. Good luck in your next job.
Diversity = geographic diversity = publishing papers by authors who are not based in North America or Western Europe.
Energy Economics has an advantage over other economics journals, because energy is a necessary good and therefore economically more important in poorer countries. But we also beat journals in development and agriculture.
I do not care much about rankings -- but I am proud that we fostered economic excellence in Africa and Asia, that we found good researchers in unlikely places, and that we gained enough of their trust to submit their papers to us.
I am really sorry to hear this. I hope you are getting some support over this.
yeah intelligent input darlin'
why don't you just have another beer then?