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

Jenny Molloy jcmcoppice12 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 4 11:30:58 UTC 2013

> 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.
It's presented in Science as a journalistic piece rather than research, the
National Geographic article doesn't make this clear.

> Conclusions they could have made: peer review does not work. But that
> they do not state.
> So, FUD. Let's move on.

Agreed, but this is the FUD that's getting published to a wide readership
and may form the basis of some people's perception of open access so as
Daniel says it's worth being aware of what arguments are being put out
there, as flawed as they may be. I get questions from people about open
access just after stories about it in more general forums and larger media
outlets so it's good to know the details to better explain why they're FUD
(if they are).


> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131004/f228f9d3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list