[open-science] Fake Cancer study published in 157 Open Access Journals
brian.hole at ubiquitypress.com
Fri Oct 4 08:44:51 UTC 2013
The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) has just issued a
response which highlights the concerns with the study and its flaws:
]u[ Ubiquity Press Ltd.
On 4 October 2013 09:33, Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jenny Molloy <jcmcoppice12 at gmail.com>
> > Thanks for sharing! It would have been nice to see a comparison to
> > acceptance rates by closed access journals, as one commenter further down
> > the article points out, peer review problems are not OA specific.
> But the abstract singles out OA journals:
> "A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at
> many open-access journals."
> At the very least, this summary is suggestive, and otherwise very
> uninformative. This is not scientific reporting, and generally
> referred to as FUD. The argumentation is just wrong, and I find it
> rather ironic that a journal accepts a paper with clear flaws in the
> argumentation that did a sting with a paper with this issue.
> Conclusions they could have made: peer review does not work. But that
> they do not state.
> So, FUD. Let's move on.
> Dr E.L. Willighagen
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT
> Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/)
> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
> ORCID: 0000-0001-7542-0286
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science