Open Access Publisher Under Scrutiny for Taking Sham Paper
First came The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Density, now comes The Open Information Science Journal. As The Scientist tells us today, it's not just the large academic publishers that are in hot water for publishing phony journals, but open source publications that are apparently attempting to publish fake papers.
This phony-baloney paper, generated by a computer program and published under pseudonyms, has shone a light on the open-access publishing industry which publishes papers for money and makes claims to peer-reviewing journal articles the same as other academic journals. This "little experiment" as these authors have called it--wanted to test whether or not the process behind the publication of such manuscripts was up-to-snuff. Clearly, at least in this case, it wasn't.
The authors did not actually have the paper published, however, fearing it would be unethical to pay the $800 to have a phony paper published in the journal knowing that it was indeed fake, even though it was cleared for publication after receiving no reviewer comments and very little communication with the journal at all.
The problems with such a flawed review process such that a journal, open access or not, could not tell the difference between a computer generated manuscript filled with nonsensical sentences and a real manuscript are serious. Whether they are isolated to open access publishers who take money to publish papers or not is an interesting question. As recent weeks have shown, traditional academic publishers face their own struggles with what is counts as a "peer-reviewed" publication.
In this case, however, the paper was simply entirely a sham. It was only because the authors pulled back and chose not to plunk down the $800 did this phony paper not appear in print.
One has to ask themselves: what else is out there lurking in the world of research and publication ethics that we have yet to uncover?
Summer Johnson, PhD
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
This hoax has NOTHING to do with OA. The pranksters chose a notoriously poor "journal" in order to grind a very particular anti-OA ax. Judgment (on OA) should be withheld until facts are checked. This was a TOTAL Straw Man.
- by Catharine on Jun 13, 2009 at 7:30 PM | link
Here are the rest of the facts, published today in The Scientist: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55759/. One of the editors of this journal has now quit over this controversy. Others related to Bentham Science Publishers have resigned as well: Marc Williams of Rochester University, member of an editorial board of another open access Bentham journal, has also resigned out of concern for the peer-review and editorial process. He had not peer-reviewed a single paper in his tenure on the editorial board. Is this a single journal or is this press-wide? The verdict is still out. But before we suggest that the "hoax" perpetuated by these two researchers has nothing to do with OA, I think we had take a closer look, at the very least, at Bentham Science Publishers, as The Scientist is doing.
- by Summer Johnson, PhD on Jun 15, 2009 at 3:28 PM | link