- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
[h=1]Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
John Bohannon[/h]A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals.
On 4 July, good news arrived in the inbox of Ocorrafoo Cobange, a biologist at the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara. It was the official letter of acceptance for a paper he had submitted 2 months earlier to the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals, describing the anticancer properties of a chemical that Cobange had extracted from a lichen.
In fact, it should have been promptly rejected. Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper's short-comings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.
<snip>
Of the 255 papers that underwent the entire editing process to acceptance or rejection, about 60% of the final decisions occurred with no sign of peer review. For rejections, that's good news: It means that the journal's quality control was high enough that the editor examined the paper and declined it rather than send it out for review. But for acceptances, it likely means that the paper was rubber-stamped without being read by anyone.
Of the 106 journals that discernibly performed any review, 70% ultimately accepted the paper. Most reviews focused exclusively on the paper's layout, formatting, and language. This sting did not waste the time of many legitimate peer reviewers. Only 36 of the 304 submissions generated review comments recognizing any of the paper's scientific problems. And 16 of those papers were accepted by the editors despite the damning reviews.
The results show that Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control: For the publishers on his list that completed the review process, 82% accepted the paper. Of course that also means that almost one in five on his list did the right thing—at least with my submission. A bigger surprise is that for DOAJ publishers that completed the review process, 45% accepted the bogus paper. "I find it hard to believe," says Bjørnshauge, the DOAJ founder. "We have been working with the community to draft new tighter criteria for inclusion." Beall, meanwhile, notes that in the year since this sting began, "the number of predatory publishers and predatory journals has continued to escalate at a rapid pace."
Complete article
This article goes a long way in explaining why there are so many scientific controversies out there today, and lends further credibility to my belief, that to those who hype "man made global warming" it's more of a religion than anything else.
In case you don't bother reading the article, I thought I'd mention that author of the bogus study that was submitted and accepted by all of those so called "peer-reviewed" scientific publications, Ocorrafoo Cobange, is a fictitious person who doesn't even exist, as well as his research institute the Wassee Institute of Medicine.
Think about this article the next time any of you want to preach man made global warming.
Over the past 10 months, I have submitted 304 versions of the wonder drug paper to open-access journals. More than half of the journals accepted the paper, failing to notice its fatal flaws
Are you serious?How does 60% showing no sign of peer review a condemnation of peer review?
Seem like you didn't bother to read the artice yourself:
So out of 304 submittals, more than half were accepted. How does that equate to all???
Open (read: free) access journals? Meh.
unreal.
Just proves us skeptics are spot on.
Seem like you didn't bother to read the artice yourself:
So out of 304 submittals, more than half were accepted. How does that equate to all???
When I said "All those" it was meant to be an expression for "that mess of" or "that big bunch of"... I didn't mean that all of those who received the paper had accepted and published it.
unreal.
Just proves us skeptics are spot on.
This article goes a long way in explaining why there are so many scientific controversies out there today, and lends further credibility to my belief, that to those who hype "man made global warming" it's more of a religion than anything else.
In case you don't bother reading the article, I thought I'd mention that author of the bogus study that was submitted and accepted by all of those so called "peer-reviewed" scientific publications, Ocorrafoo Cobange, is a fictitious person who doesn't even exist, as well as his research institute the Wassee Institute of Medicine.
Think about this article the next time any of you want to preach man made global warming.
This article goes a long way in explaining why there are so many scientific controversies out there today, and lends further credibility to my belief, that to those who hype "man made global warming" it's more of a religion than anything else.
In case you don't bother reading the article, I thought I'd mention that author of the bogus study that was submitted and accepted by all of those so called "peer-reviewed" scientific publications, Ocorrafoo Cobange, is a fictitious person who doesn't even exist, as well as his research institute the Wassee Institute of Medicine.
Think about this article the next time any of you want to preach man made global warming.
:caution: :alert you are exposing their idiocy, that won't go over well here.....
If that's the case, then your choice of wording was very deceitful and misleading. Plenty of "those" publishers did not accept his bogus paper.
Dishonest posting rarely goes over well.
About as well as your pathetic attempts to insult me and question my intefrity... So, I guess the only question now is, are you going to get butt-hurt and start stalking me again?
Dishonest posting rarely goes over well.
If I can't trust a peer-reviewed paper what should I trust to educate myself about an issue I'm not very knowledgeable about?
Is there an alternative grim?
When I said "All those" it was meant to be an expression for "that mess of" or "that big bunch of"... I didn't mean that all of those who received the paper had accepted and published it.
Yep it sure does, glad he was telling the truth! I wish the liberals would do the same. They seem incapable. :shrug:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?