Some online journals will publish fake science for a fee

NPR ^ | 10-3-13 | Richard Knox

[afraidfortherepublic]

When medical research is published in a peer-reviewed journal, the presumption is that the study has been reviewed for accuracy. The advent of open-access journals has made it easier to get published. But when a journalist sent an obviously faked paper, dozens of open-access journals said they'd be happy to publish it, for a fee.

That's the conclusion of an elaborate sting carried out by Science, a leading mainline journal. The result should trouble doctors, patients, policymakers and anyone who has a stake in the integrity of science (and who doesn't?).

The business model of these "predatory publishers" is a scientific version of those phishes from Nigerians who want help transferring a few million dollars into your bank account.

To find out just how common predatory publishing is, Science contributor John Bohannon sent a deliberately faked research article 305 times to online journals. More than half the journals that supposedly reviewed the fake paper accepted it.

"This sting operation," Bohannan writes, reveals "the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing."

Online scientific journals are springing up at a great rate. There are thousands out there. Many, such as PLoS One, are totally respectable. This "open access" model is making good science more accessible than ever before, without making users pay the hefty subscription fees of traditional print journals.

(It should be noted that Science is among these legacy print journals, charging subscription fees and putting much of its online content behind a pay wall.)

But the Internet has also opened the door to clever imitators who collect fees from scientists eager to get published. "It's the equivalent of paying someone to publish your work on their blog," Bohannan tells Shots.

These sleazy journals often look legitimate. They bear titles like the American Journal of Polymer Science

[afraidfortherepublic]

Examples at link.

Makes you wonder about all of the "climate science" you see published.

[DManA]

Right, because NPR gets tax dollars they are COMPLETELY reliable.

[DManA]

I’m telling you guys this is the next big statist issue - Big media needs a public subsidy to “maintain their credibility”.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

EXACTLY right.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Science, Nature, Cell, and the rest of the ‘high end’ journals also publish their share of crap. A lot of crap. There was a paper/letter published in Nature last year from a guy who was the head of cancer research at Amgen. He took a team of ~100 scientists from Amgen and tried to replicate the results of 53 ‘landmark’ studies in cancer research published in top journals. He found that 47 of these 53 studies couldn't be replicated. There is a huge amount of crap coming out of academic research, because the leadership at many academic institutions perpetuate a climate in which lying and cheating and manipulating advances careers. The top journals should be spending a bit more energy ensuring that what they publish is real, before being critical about other journals.

Link to a Reuters article about the above: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328

[Still Thinking]

Some online journals will publish fake science for a fee

Some? What do you mean, "some"? The IPCC, the PCRM, anything associated with the AMA, need I go on?

[norwaypinesavage]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. NPR is THE repository for fake science, as long as it has to do with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. NPR is the altar of the IPCC - International Political Consensus Church. To criticize some other fake science is like the court jester criticizing a clown.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks afraidfortherepublic.

When medical research is published in a peer-reviewed journal, the presumption is that the study has been reviewed for accuracy.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks afraidfortherepublic.