[open-science] Fake Cancer study published in 157 Open Access Journals

[Daniel Lombraña González]

Hi,

Thanks for sharing the response. It is interesting to read that some of
their members actually gave the green light to publish the paper. They are
investigating it, and I would like to know what happened, just so other
oa-journals improve their review process.

As I said, we can only focus ourselves on the FUD, or think about better
ways to improve peer reviewed papers. To me, the main problem is the peer
reviewed process, independently of the publishing model. IMHO the old model
has more disadvantages than the open one (everything is done under the
curtain) , so let's try to improve it learning from this story.

Cheers,

Daniel


On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Brian Hole <brian.hole at ubiquitypress.com>wrote:

> The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) has just issued a
> response which highlights the concerns with the study and its flaws:
> http://oaspa.org/response-to-the-recent-article-in-science
>
> Brian Hole
> ]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>
>> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Egon
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>


-- 
http://daniellombrana.es
http://citizencyberscience.net
http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/fellows/daniel-lombrana/
··························································································································································
Please do NOT use proprietary file formats to share files
like DOC or XLS, instead use PDF, HTML, RTF, TXT, CSV or
any other format that does not impose on the user the employment
of any specific software to work with the information inside the files.
··························································································································································
Por favor, NO utilice formatos de archivo propietarios para el
intercambio de documentos, como DOC y XLS, sino PDF, HTML, RTF, TXT, CSV
o cualquier otro que no obligue a utilizar un programa de un
fabricante concreto para tratar la información contenida en él.
··························································································································································
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131004/6e6f42ef/attachment-0001.html>