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

[Paola Di Maio]

well, in addition to Lukes points
we should see how much fake science has been published by traditional
non OA journals in modern history
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27383/title/Elsevier-published-6-fake-journals/

One could claim that quite a lot of research before the OA movement started
was fake /biased in more than one way

Many reputable researchers massage their data anyway to make it look more
polished and credible than it is, and a lot of datasets have to be
taken at face value, or can only be scrutinized up to a point

That said,  its a good opportunity for OA to take a good lock at itself and
become
more rigorous and fake proof in the future, that's always worth striving for


PDM



On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Luke Winslow <lawinslow at wisc.edu> wrote:

>  if an article clearly demonstrates serious problems of gold OA
>
> IMHO, the article didn't demonstrate a serious problem of Open Access
> journals. It probably demonstrated a serious problem with how peer review
> works and just neglected to examine non-OA journals. Ultimately, it has
> supported the hypothesis that *some* journals seem to have standards which
> are more lax than we would like, but it has *certainly* collected no data
> to show that OA journals are better or worse than non-OA journals.
>
> For example, if I wanted to do a study to see how good or bad the grammar
> used by people in email is. So we go about collecting large archives of
> email. Because we don't have the time, we go out and collect only emails
> from people named Klaus.
>
> In writing our paper, instead of discussing the error rate in emails in
> general, we decide, "Hey, these emails sent by those names Klaus are filled
> with errors! This is huge news and people should never name their kids
> Klaus unless they want them to have bad email grammar!" Usage of the name
> "Klaus" plummets.
>
> But of course we have no idea if the Klauses of the world actually have
> any worse grammar than the average. We didn't look at the other 99.99%* of
> the world's population. In fact, the Klauses of the world may actually have
> better grammar on average, though our data, without supplement, will never
> be able to tell us.
>
> So are OA journals worse than non-OA journals? I have no idea. Is peer
> review somewhat shoddy? Probably.
>
> -Luke
>
> *Rounded to the nearest 1/100th
>
>
>
> On 2013-10-04 8:19 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
>
>  I cannot see what is FUD if an article clearly demonstrates serious
> problems of gold OA. I am a little more shocked of the reactions of the OA
> community which plays down the alarming results than of the article itself.
> This is siege mentality and absolutely not helpful.
>
>  Klaus Graf
>
>
> 2013/10/4 Jenny Molloy <jcmcoppice12 at gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>>  Jenny
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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 listopen-science at lists.okfn.orghttp://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>
> --
> Limnology and Marine Science
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>
> Mailing Address:
> 680 N. Park St.
> Madison, WI 53706
>
> Skype: lawinslow
> Web: http://www.bookofluke.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131004/8067d8f4/attachment-0001.html>