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

[Pierre-Carl Langlais]

I tend to think this is merely a matter of self-regulation. Scientific 
publishing has faced dramatic changes during the last few years. Some 
scroungers try to exploit the disorientation of usual practices and the 
delayed adaptation of scientific institutions. This situation will 
probably not last. As OA tends to become the standard of scientific 
publishing, universities are likely to define some selections of 
aknowledged OA publishers, or even create their own OA journals.

PCL
Le 04/10/13 18:48, Paola Di Maio a écrit :
> Samuel
> metrics are good ad your suggestions go in the right direction imho
>
> but rejection rates can be artificially  inflated too by having 
>  totally irrelevant bogus worthless article submitted by friends and 
> family just to get the rejection figure up.
>
> as scientists know, everything that a can be proven can also be disproven
>
>
> P
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Samuel Leach <samuel.leach at gmail.com 
> <mailto:samuel.leach at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi everyone,
>
>     In terms of metrics, it would be great if journals would publish:
>
>     - Impact factor (I do have reservations about using this metric in
>     isolation)
>     - Rejection rate.
>
>     and if we could develop some kind of
>
>     - Journal reputation score (depends on various factors including
>     the editors and referees' standing - welcome suggestions here).
>
>     That ought to separate out many of those predatory publishers
>     bogus journals who are forever spamming academics.
>
>     Sam Leach
>
>
>     On 4 October 2013 15:53, Pawe? Szcze;sny <ps at pawelszczesny.org
>     <mailto:ps at pawelszczesny.org>> wrote:
>
>
>         On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Egon Willighagen
>         <egon.willighagen at gmail.com
>         <mailto:egon.willighagen at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>             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...
>
>
>         In principle I agree, however Klaus points out in quite an
>         interesting direction. Gold OA (APC version) _enabled_ or _let
>         flourish_ (choose your version) particular predatory business
>         model. Before introduction of OA and article processing
>         charges pushing weak paper through the journal willing to
>         'cooperate' wasn't that easy, as the transfer of benefits
>         wasn't as automated as today (it was just harder to _pay_ to
>         get your bogus paper "published"). Apparently, intrinsic
>         problems of peer review (the same for OA and non-OA
>         publishing) are much easier to be exploited in Gold OA (APC
>         version).
>
>         For example, if I were predatory publisher I would start to
>         optimize ratio between image/impact/IF and rejection rate to
>         maximize income (maybe you could trade a bit of IF but have
>         much smaller rejection rate than PLoS One?). Such strategy
>         seems to guarantee long-term survival on the market, as long
>         as APC dominates Gold OA.
>
>         Of course, the original piece doesn't reach that far. However,
>         maybe, when speaking out on the issue, we should mention
>         PeerJ, as an example of OA journal that removes a direct
>         incentive for the publisher to publish more at the cost of
>         quality? The fact that PLoS One rejected the bogus paper does
>         not help much, as the predatory journals and P1 have in
>         principle the same business models.
>
>         Best wishes
>         PS
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         open-science mailing list
>         open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>         http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>         Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Samuel Leach
>     Mobile: +44(0)7447515032 <tel:%2B44%280%297447515032>
>     slea.ch <http://slea.ch>
>     @samuelleach
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     open-science mailing list
>     open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131004/7ac879f6/attachment-0001.html>