Slashdot Mirror
Seven Science Journals Have A Dog On Their Editorial Board (atlasobscura.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
A professor of health policy at Australia's Curtin University got seven different science journals to put his dog on their editorial board. The dog is now associate editor for the Global Journal of Addiction & Rehabilitation Medicine, and sits on the editorial board of Psychiatry and Mental Disorders. The professor says he feels sorry for one researcher who recently submitted a paper about how to treat sheath tumors, because "the journal has sent it to a dog to review." The official profile of the dog lists its research interests as "the benefits of abdominal massage for medium-sized canines" and "avian propinquity to canines in metropolitan suburbs."
An Australian news site points out that career-minded researchers pay up to $3,000 to get their work published in predatory journals so they can list more publications on their resumes. "While this started as something lighthearted," says the dog-owning professor, "I think it is important to expose shams of this kind which prey on the gullible, especially young or naive academics and those from developing countries."
An Australian news site points out that career-minded researchers pay up to $3,000 to get their work published in predatory journals so they can list more publications on their resumes. "While this started as something lighthearted," says the dog-owning professor, "I think it is important to expose shams of this kind which prey on the gullible, especially young or naive academics and those from developing countries."
Pay for the most expensive school, then load your CV with pay to publish articles, and eventually you will get grants and "win"!
If any industry needs disruption, it's the education industry.
The dog is on the editorial board to sniff out bullshit
Its pretty simple, non peer reviewed generals do not represent good science and research. Stop citing them, stop reading them. People publish in them not necessarily because their results are bad, but because their research methods are trash and often unrepeatable.
Actually, all that this article shows that a minimum of seven science journals have a dog on their editorial board.
Look, our lab has published in standard pay walled journals, and in open access journals. They both put you through the usual peer review, which can be honest and thorough, quick and uncritical, absurdly overcritical and just plain silly sometimes. Each journal is different. Some journals are so bad that their editors can put their dog on the editorial board. Many are much better than that. But the scientific review process is so fractured and disconnected that there is no way to know which publications are reliable, and which are not. Even the top tier, pay walled journals publish crap sometimes, and even they have to retract some papers after serious problems are found. Opening up the review process to the public and making reviews more inclusive, honest and accountable (no anonymous reviewers) would go a long way to improving the system.
Paying $3000 to get your work published in an honest and properly peer reviewed open access journal is a good thing, it means that everyone can read the work for free. Fixing the existing peer review and scientific publishing problems is going to take a lot of concerted effort on the part of scientists and publishers.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Why? How bad was the dog's criticisms of the paper?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So quick to blame this on human corruption - for all we know, the dog was granted additional priority by other dogs on the editorial board.
*woof*
Requiem for the American Dream
Serious candidates need to have publications in journals that those in the field know about and have a good impact factor and the area experts generally read a few of the papers. Having a large number of papers in a dodgy, predatory journal will kill any chance of being hired.
I would even go further: A single paper in a dodgy journal on your CV can easily kill your career in science. It is a red flag that shows, that you lack one of the most basic skills any researcher should have. You show that you are unable to tell the difference between a real and a predatory journal and often it even shows that even your advisor was unable to do so. A PhD from a clueless advisor is almost worthless.
Quantity over quality is not a valid excuse. There are plenty of non-predatory, real lower rank conferences that will happily publish anything with only the slightest bit of scientific value.
Jan