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

[Klaus Graf]

The same nonsense you have written before.

If I write an article on Tibet I do not have the duty to take the rest of
the world as control group. "Really bad" is only what OA advocates do when
ignoring uncomfortable truths.

Klaus Graf


2013/10/8 Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com>

> There were indeed VERY serious flaws, and I'm a bit surprised that
> anyone would claim not to be able to see them. I enumerated some of
> them here:
>
> http://svpow.com/2013/10/07/anti-tutorial-how-to-design-and-execute-a-really-bad-study/
>
> On 8 October 2013 15:12, Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7 October 2013 19:33, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> See also
> >> http://archivalia.tumblr.com/tagged/openaccess
> >>
> >> I still cannot see serious flaws
> >
> >
> > I'm not going to claim serious flaws in the methodology, or even in what
> the
> > article itself states. However, to accept it as an expose of OA alone is
> a
> > serious flaw.
> >
> > a) There is no comparative data for submissions to closed access journals
> > b) No attempt was made (or at least documented to have been made) to
> obtain
> > waivers for the APCs
> >
> > On that second point, the article was submitted with African
> affiliations,
> > which would have been cause to grant a waiver for any of the OA
> publishers
> > that operate such policies for lower income countries.
> >
> > Either, and preferably both, of these would have given indication as to
> > whether the acceptances were driven by predatory desires to reap the
> APCs.
> > As it is, the Bohannon article is missing (at least) two critical pieces
> of
> > evidence, which means it is only telling half a story, at best.
> >
> > Besides, this is ultimately a largely self-correcting problem. Open
> science
> > can be discredited, journals will get reputations for being routinely
> > discredited (Negative Impact Factors, if you will) and no serious author
> > with real results is going to want to publish in journals with a bad
> > reputation. (And for any new authors that are not so well informed, there
> > should be appropriate support structures from their funders, colleagues
> and
> > institutions to avoid the problems).
> >
> > If predatory publishers remain, and a small number of authors can afford
> to
> > pay them to publish what they know to be crap, so be it. The only danger
> of
> > that is bogus studies being published in order to sell useless products
> as
> > being scientifically proven - but that's a consumer issue, not a
> > research/science one.
> >
> > This would be a much more serious issue if credible journals that
> command a
> > good reputation were accepting nonsense to harvest APCs. But this study
> > actually showed that they did not. And whilst anyone could make a
> mistake,
> > the respected journals aren't going to wave through poor articles -
> because
> > they would very quickly lose their reputation (and hence value, and
> > revenue).
> >
> > G
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20131008/92540c0a/attachment-0001.html>