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

Tue Oct 8 13:05:53 UTC 2013

I've tried to take a clear-headed look at some of the numbers behind the Science article in comments here:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/10/04/oh-the-fun-you-can-have/#comment-34155

If anyone needs to pick over the entrails in preparing a response, that might be useful.  My main conclusion is that Beall's list is a strong indicator of bogosity: DOAJ journals do much better (although still not as well as we would like).

On 8 Oct 2013, at 07:56, Daniel Lombraña González <teleyinex at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I like the idea proposed from Francois. A joint message from OKF science group, Mozilla Science Lab and Creative Commons 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.
> ··························································································································································
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Nick Barnes
Director, Climate Code Foundation