Slashdot Mirror
Science Magazine "Sting Operation" Catches Predatory Journals In the Act
sciencehabit writes "A sting operation orchestrated by Science's contributing news correspondent John Bohannon exposes the dark side of open-access publishing. Bohannon created a spoof scientific report, authored by made-up researchers from institutions that don't actually exist, and submitted it to 304 peer-reviewed, open-access journals around the world. His hoax paper claimed that a particular molecule slowed the growth of cancer cells, and it was riddled with obvious errors and contradictions. Unfortunately, despite the paper's flaws, more open-access journals accepted it for publication (157) than rejected it (98). In fact, only 36 of the journals solicited responded with substantive comments that recognized the report's scientific problems. The article reveals a 'Wild West' landscape that's emerging in academic publishing, where journals and their editorial staffs aren't necessarily who or what they claim to be."
Did he send the bogus articles to closed publishers too? How did the rates compare? I tried to RTFA, but didn't see anything about controls.
I've made comments before comparing science and religion, and too often people think that I'm a religious person trying to belittle a genuine quest for knowledge. On the contrary, I think the genuine quest for knowledge is an amazingly worthwhile thing. However, science has become a method for the "practitioners" and "priests" to exert social, economic, and institutional influence by swaying the beliefs of those who are not educated enough or informed enough to differentiate between genuine knowledge and blind dogma.
It's less that I'm a backwoods book-hating theist. It's that I've "lost the faith" and don't believe in what we call "science". We've gotten into muddy waters, studying soft sciences in ways that will never reach definitive answers, and allowed politics and media to have too much sway. We've gotten better at engineering, and worse at knowledge.
Go ahead. Mod me as flamebait.
In Norway, we have a "level" system that is used in academia throughout the country. It is used for evaluating researchers and research groups when it comes to employment, tenure, funding etc. Your "point score" is summed up, 2 points for publication in a "level 2" journal, 1 point for "level 1".
A journal is either "level 2", "level 1" or "level 0". "level 2" is a selection of top journals from each field in science, 2000 in total (for all of science, from computational physics to the sociology of music). "level 1" means the remaining serious peer-reviewed journals. "level 0" either means "bullshit journal" or "journal that was founded just last year".
Researchers may nominate journals for a change in status, e.g. 2->1, 0->, etc. The decisions are made by a government-appointet body on a yearly basis. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's a lot better than nothing.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
I think they're all trying to figure out their business models.
I know some respected organizations have created open access journals, though they rely on member fees to pay for the costs. Others rely on the author to pony up some cash (some up to $1500) which pays for it.
I think the author-pays is an interesting one - and quite possibly might be a way to cut down the number of bad articles - after all, if you're not willing to pony up, you probably don't have enough belief In your research.
Here's the problem with doing that so systemically: it is fundamentally anticompetitive, and leads to stagnation. Nobody would bother submitting to a "level 0" journal because it won't earn them any props at all, which means that the journal can never become anything more than a "level 0" journal. This means that you don't get fresh blood with new ideas on the review boards, so progress moves at a snail's pace. There's something to be said for disruptive innovation, even in academic publishing circles.
Also, the entire notion of judging the value of your scientific contribution based on what journal agreed to publish it is as absurd as judging the value of a car based on what dealer sold it. A paper should stand or fall on its own merits. A good article that pushes science forward, even if published in a minor journal, should weigh significantly in your favor for tenure, and a lousy article, even if published in a major journal, should not. A system that does the opposite is abject stupidity, pure and simple.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
In all seriousness, I - as a researcher myself - understand the need of easy access to publications. However, I never supported the open access models that came into existence and are being built and pursued today. Why? Because it's all about the money and a lot of such journals absolutely do not care about quality, or about having big name editors who'd perform very thorough revision of reviews and make proper decisions about paper acceptances. Big journals have good editorial and review staff, and they simply can't allow them to be bad and irresponsible, because they actually care about their reputation and credibility. New breed open access journals on the other hand only care about revenue.
The instititue I work at has mandated open access publication as well as others did, however, they did not provide funding for us to actually publish open access versions at big name journals, so we try to play the system whenever we can, and publish in traditional journals with traditional publication schemes. I do not care about some politician-flavored scientists' (most of them not even publishing) dreams about some utopistic open access world. I care about publications appearing in credible journals, reviewed by credible people, producing quality publications - even if they are only attainable for money.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.