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

Mon Oct 7 20:55:43 UTC 2013

I apologize for having send my  message meant for the list  to Klaus only
and not to the list,
Still I think that this discussion has become nasty by calling me a liar.I
do not accept this kind treatment.
The science of the Hoax sucks, and if you do not agree, come with
scientific arguments
But you do not accept criticism apparently by writing:  stop lying, End Of
Discussion

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [open-science] Fake Cancer study published in 157 Open Access
Journals
To: Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com>

Dear Klaus,

Please read the reactions by Peter Suber, Michael Eisen and Mike Taylor.
It is not a question of not accepting critics, it is a question of not
accepting bad science, wrong conclusions and generalisations
The studied group of journals was a non-randomly selected group of OA
journals where 30 % was based in India and 121 / 304 were known predatory
journals. It was not at all representative of the group of 10,000+  open
access journals that exist.Small wonder that  in  the  result many of those
journals turned out to be bogus....
Apart from that in the selected group the journals that published the
largest nr of articles did very well

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 2013/10/4 Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen at gmail.com>
>
>> 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.lay down the cause-effect which the paper does not
>>
>> show, and only suggests. That is called FUD.
>>
>
> YOU are wrong here. If more than half of the tested OA journals accept
> fake science then it is playing down to speak of "some" publishers. As I
> said: siege mentality which doesn't accept critics.
>
> Klaus Graf
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Tom Olijhoek
Codex Consult
www.codexconsult.eu
coordinator @ccess open access working group  at OKF
DOAJ  member of Advisory Board
freelance advisor for the WorldBank Publishing Group
TEL +(31)645540804
SKYPE tom.olijhoek
LinkedIn  http://nl.linkedin.com/in/tomolijhoek/

-- 
Tom Olijhoek
Codex Consult
www.codexconsult.eu
coordinator @ccess open access working group  at OKF
DOAJ  member of Advisory Board
freelance advisor for the WorldBank Publishing Group
TEL +(31)645540804
SKYPE tom.olijhoek
LinkedIn  http://nl.linkedin.com/in/tomolijhoek/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131007/2435fa42/attachment-0001.html>