[open-science] Fake Cancer study published in 157 Open Access Journals
cboettig at gmail.com
Fri Oct 4 18:02:37 UTC 2013
I am just curious as to what is the greater potential concern here: that
well-intentioned authors are being deceived, or that demand from dishonest
authors has created a large market for dishonest publishers (possibly in an
attempt to deceive employers who assess their output by volume?)
Last week's Economist
to focus on the latter problem (valuing that industry at $150
million in 2009 and rapidly growing). The discussion around the Science
piece has been less clear, though it seems to have publishers in the
In a different vein, Would a more transparent peer review system, as
practised by both some APC-based OA and some subscription journals, have
addressed concerns this piece raises?
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Samuel Leach <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
>> - 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, Paweł Szczęsny <ps at pawelszczesny.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Egon Willighagen <
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>> Samuel Leach
>> Mobile: +44(0)7447515032
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
UC Santa Cruz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science