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

Tue Oct 8 06:56:36 UTC 2013

Hi,

I like the idea proposed from Francois. A joint message from OKF science
group, Mozilla Science Lab <https://wiki.mozilla.org/ScienceLab>and Creative
Commons Science <http://creativecommons.org/science> about this topic
regarding the Economist article would be very valuable in my opinion.

>From my point of view, it would send the right message, and I guess it
would have more impact than just the OASPA group post, as only researchers
interested in this specific topic will read about it.

Just to give you an idea, I originally found the link to the National
Geographic article in a web about general news, in other words: that
article was read by lots of people getting the impression that OA journals
are bad.

I guess that a letter from all the groups I mentioned, saying why that
article is not fair, it would help to get awareness of the problem and make
a clear point about what is the position of these open science groups
regarding this topic. Additionally I guess it could reach a lot of people
and open the discussion, due to it will be a letter answering the Economist
article, and signed by three main players, well known and respected by the
world.

Cheers,

Daniel

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
http://daniellombrana.es
http://citizencyberscience.net
http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/fellows/daniel-lombrana/
··························································································································································
Please do NOT use proprietary file formats to share files
like DOC or XLS, instead use PDF, HTML, RTF, TXT, CSV or
any other format that does not impose on the user the employment
of any specific software to work with the information inside the files.
··························································································································································
Por favor, NO utilice formatos de archivo propietarios para el
intercambio de documentos, como DOC y XLS, sino PDF, HTML, RTF, TXT, CSV
o cualquier otro que no obligue a utilizar un programa de un
fabricante concreto para tratar la información contenida en él.
··························································································································································
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131008/5bedd1ba/attachment-0001.html>