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

Fri Oct 4 13:46:31 UTC 2013

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I cannot see what is FUD if an article clearly demonstrates serious problems
> of gold OA.

No, you are wrong there, I'm sorry. The problems are there, but with
peer review, as the title of the article clearly writes. Worse too, is
that some publishers (or better: editorial boards) that do not do
their work.

But the paper *does* *not* show a cause-effect between OA and this
problem. They just did not do the correct experiment for that. A
reviewer should have caught that... but, oh wait, peer review is
broken as the paper found out...

> I am a little more shocked of the reactions of the OA community
> which plays down the alarming results

They don't. They play down the cause-effect which the paper does not
show, and only suggests. That is called FUD.

Instead, if you read all the online coverage, you will see that the
vocal OA movement has been very active in quality, and ensuring better
quality than the traditional peer-review does.

It disappoints me that people against OA cannot identify the real
underlying factors of quality. Very unscientific, in fact.

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