from the brit med j.
An expose of a dodgy "open access" publisher is laid bare at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06...nse-for-dollars. A scientific article created using software that generates grammatically correct but "context-free" (nonsensical) papers was submitted to The Open Information Science Journal, a journal that claims to enforce peer review. The paper purported to be from authors affiliated to the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP). The publisher confirmed receipt of the paper the next day, and about four months later lo and behold—the article was accepted. Producer-pays-to-publish models of publishing should watch out for their credibility.
Looks like vanity scientific press.
0
dodgy Open Information Science Journal
Started by GeorgeWolff, Jul 23 2009 01:04 PM
5 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Active Members
-
- 16,651 posts
carpe diem by the jugulum
Posted 23 July 2009 - 01:42 PM
GeorgeWolff, on Jul 23 2009, 05:04 PM, said:
from the brit med j.
An expose of a dodgy "open access" publisher is laid bare at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06...nse-for-dollars. A scientific article created using software that generates grammatically correct but "context-free" (nonsensical) papers was submitted to The Open Information Science Journal, a journal that claims to enforce peer review. The paper purported to be from authors affiliated to the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP). The publisher confirmed receipt of the paper the next day, and about four months later lo and behold—the article was accepted. Producer-pays-to-publish models of publishing should watch out for their credibility.
Looks like vanity scientific press.
An expose of a dodgy "open access" publisher is laid bare at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06...nse-for-dollars. A scientific article created using software that generates grammatically correct but "context-free" (nonsensical) papers was submitted to The Open Information Science Journal, a journal that claims to enforce peer review. The paper purported to be from authors affiliated to the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP). The publisher confirmed receipt of the paper the next day, and about four months later lo and behold—the article was accepted. Producer-pays-to-publish models of publishing should watch out for their credibility.
Looks like vanity scientific press.
Wasn't this in the Lab Joke section earlier this year... we "created" our own papers using a software...it wasn't a joke after all...
"Oh what a beauteousness!"
- hobglobin, personal comment about my beauteous photo......
- hobglobin, personal comment about my beauteous photo......
#3
-
- Active Members
-
- 15,036 posts
Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional...
Posted 23 July 2009 - 01:58 PM
casandra, on Jul 23 2009, 11:42 PM, said:
GeorgeWolff, on Jul 23 2009, 05:04 PM, said:
from the brit med j.
An expose of a dodgy "open access" publisher is laid bare at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06...nse-for-dollars. A scientific article created using software that generates grammatically correct but "context-free" (nonsensical) papers was submitted to The Open Information Science Journal, a journal that claims to enforce peer review. The paper purported to be from authors affiliated to the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP). The publisher confirmed receipt of the paper the next day, and about four months later lo and behold—the article was accepted. Producer-pays-to-publish models of publishing should watch out for their credibility.
Looks like vanity scientific press.
An expose of a dodgy "open access" publisher is laid bare at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06...nse-for-dollars. A scientific article created using software that generates grammatically correct but "context-free" (nonsensical) papers was submitted to The Open Information Science Journal, a journal that claims to enforce peer review. The paper purported to be from authors affiliated to the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP). The publisher confirmed receipt of the paper the next day, and about four months later lo and behold—the article was accepted. Producer-pays-to-publish models of publishing should watch out for their credibility.
Looks like vanity scientific press.
Wasn't this in the Lab Joke section earlier this year... we "created" our own papers using a software...it wasn't a joke after all...
Okay I'll submit our paper then
...
One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.
#4
-
- Active Members
-
- 16,651 posts
carpe diem by the jugulum
Posted 23 July 2009 - 02:15 PM
hobglobin, on Jul 23 2009, 05:58 PM, said:
casandra, on Jul 23 2009, 11:42 PM, said:
GeorgeWolff, on Jul 23 2009, 05:04 PM, said:
from the brit med j.
An expose of a dodgy "open access" publisher is laid bare at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06...nse-for-dollars. A scientific article created using software that generates grammatically correct but "context-free" (nonsensical) papers was submitted to The Open Information Science Journal, a journal that claims to enforce peer review. The paper purported to be from authors affiliated to the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP). The publisher confirmed receipt of the paper the next day, and about four months later lo and behold—the article was accepted. Producer-pays-to-publish models of publishing should watch out for their credibility.
Looks like vanity scientific press.
An expose of a dodgy "open access" publisher is laid bare at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06...nse-for-dollars. A scientific article created using software that generates grammatically correct but "context-free" (nonsensical) papers was submitted to The Open Information Science Journal, a journal that claims to enforce peer review. The paper purported to be from authors affiliated to the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP). The publisher confirmed receipt of the paper the next day, and about four months later lo and behold—the article was accepted. Producer-pays-to-publish models of publishing should watch out for their credibility.
Looks like vanity scientific press.
Wasn't this in the Lab Joke section earlier this year... we "created" our own papers using a software...it wasn't a joke after all...
Okay I'll submit our paper then
...Was I the first author there dr H? I better be....
...the authors who submitted the paper must be laughing their heads off...
"Oh what a beauteousness!"
- hobglobin, personal comment about my beauteous photo......
- hobglobin, personal comment about my beauteous photo......
#5
-
- Active Members
-
- 114 posts
Veteran
Posted 23 July 2009 - 10:07 PM
GeorgeWolff, on Jul 24 2009, 07:04 AM, said:
grammatically correct but "context-free"
One out of two; is that half bad or half good?
The supervisor who looked at the first draft of my thesis claimed I had neither correct.
#6
-
- Active Members
-
- 1,466 posts
Veteran
Posted 24 July 2009 - 09:58 AM
Makes we wonder if I should ignore all betham papers from now on.. reading this..
If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some then not ask and stay stupid.
