SCIENCE
‘STING OPERATION’: THE STUNNING PERCENTAGE OF SCIENCE JOURNALS THAT ACCEPTED A COMPLETELY BOGUS STUDY
Oct. 4, 2013 11:25am Liz Klimas
91
354
24
10
72 [cROWNOTE: These are badas numbers]
Science magazine wanted to figure out just how legitimate open-access, peer-reviewed journals are. So, it set out to dupe them with a completely fake study.

peer reviewe
The sting operation conducted by Science magazine showed many open-access journals lack the quality control to catch fake or faulty science — or even ignore peer reviews pointing it out — in order to make profit on submissions. (Image source: Shutterstock.com)
What it found is surprising some in the scientific industry, while only confirming the fears of others. More than half of the journals John Bohannon submitted his paper about the fictitious, anticancer properties identified in a lichen compound were accepted for publication.

The first and easiest clue that could have been picked out by the journals was that the study’s author, Ocorrafoo Cobange, does not exist as a real person, nor does his research institute, the Wassee Institute of Medicine.

But beyond that, Bohannon wrote in Science that “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,” Bohannon continued.

The experiment was testing so-called “open-access” journals — those that are not subscription based. There are some who advocate in favor of open-access to help spread scientific knowledge, while others want the system to remain remain subscription-oriented, which can create a financial barrier.

Of the 304 submissions of the fake study during a 10-month timeframe (only 255 submitted received some sort of response from editors) 157 seemed to miss the study’s “fatal flaws” in the “sting operation” that Bohannan said shows “the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing.”

Sixty percent of this 255 didn’t undergo any peer review, which for those that were rejected is “good news,” according to Bohannan, because it means editors didn’t even waste reviewers time with it. For those that accepted it without peer review it means “the paper was rubber-stamped without being read by anyone.”

Of the 106 submissions that did undergo review, only 36 recognized the scientific problems with the study. Sixteen publications, even with “damning reviews,” still accepted the paper.

Here’s more from Bohannan’s perspective on what the sting revealed.(emphasis added):

From humble and idealistic beginnings a decade ago, open-access scientific journals have mushroomed into a global industry, driven by author publication fees rather than traditional subscriptions. Most of the players are murky. The identity and location of the journals’ editors, as well as the financial workings of their publishers, are often purposefully obscured. But Science‘s investigation casts a powerful light. Internet Protocol (IP) address traces within the raw headers of e-mails sent by journal editors betray their locations. Invoices for publication fees reveal a network of bank accounts based mostly in the developing world. And the acceptances and rejections of the paper provide the first global snapshot of peer review across the open-access scientific enterprise.

[...]

Acceptance was the norm, not the exception. [CROWN OTEE MPHASIZE THEIRS The paper was accepted by journals hosted by industry titans Sage and Elsevier. The paper was accepted by journals published by prestigious academic institutions such as Kobe University in Japan. It was accepted by scholarly society journals. It was even accepted by journals for which the paper’s topic was utterly inappropriate, such as the Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction.

What it seems to come down to is profit.
[crow note: Emphasize mine. Now whats up00]

“But even when editors and bank accounts are in the developing world, the company that ultimately reaps the profits may be based in the United States or Europe. In some cases, academic publishing powerhouses sit at the top of the chain,” Bohannan wrote.

Another interesting find was that an open-access journal that Bohannan said is among the many that have been “criticized for poor quality control” actually had the “most rigorous peer review of all.” The journal PLOS One, for example, was the only one pointing out some of the study’s ethical issues. This journal rejected the fictitious paper due to poor scientific quality.

Read about the full investigation in Bohannan’s full article in Science.

Featured image via Shutterstock.com.

–

Frankly, this is a badas article

getfiscal posted:

damn if science journals are like this, imagine how bad continental philosophy ones must be

Wiat which continent.

babyhueypnewton posted:

But yeah obviously the elevation of science to be 'above' ideology is pure ideology and anaytical marxists should be first against the wall when the revolution comes

u hurt 1 fuckin hair on a single marxist head and see what happens bub *motions to gun-totin', chaw-spittin' southern good ol' boy Revolutionary Vanguard standing behind me*

acephalousuniverse posted:

"sting operation"

zenyatta intifada

SariBari posted:

Hi, welcome to the intro lecture of a 1000 level Comparative Politics course, taken by most of us idiot Poli Sci folks.

I hate most of us but you're actually wrong. We're professional bullshit artists and can be really flexible. It's why we're in top 10 earning degrees so often. We can be anything to anyone! Mostly just lawyers though.

see though, i too am an idiot poli sci kid, even though it's my second major, and this has been my experience. lotta dumb questions are asked in intro classes like the ones i just stated. the problem that i've seen though is what you just stated: after awhile everybody stops questioning anything and just bullshits all the time in order to appease whomever is asking the question. welcome to college, right?

i feel like it's a bigger deal than that though because the discipline as a whole has no concept of introspection. there is no assumption questioning on a higher level that i can tell. obviously i could be wrong about this but, like stated, i deal with what i can see. the chameleon flexibility that you've mentioned is a flexibility of action, but i'm talking about a flexibility of thought, which again i believe to be lacking. you're welcome to disagree.

acephalousuniverse posted:

lykourgos why dont you just admit all this classicist stuff is just leading up to you wanting to rub your dick in between the thighs of young boys

oh so THATS why i was doign that