Shared publicly  - 
 
A 'sting' operation of OA publishers

An author submitted 100s of variants on the same obviously-flawed article to various open access journals, and got through peer review (or what passes as 'peer review') in most of them.

I don't think these results are specific to OA, but are just a characterization of the bottom tier of publishing.

By focusing only on OAs, the author is inviting the comparison to closed access. However, that is not the fair comparison, the fair comparison is by tier. Most journals out there are absolute garbage, an they will continue to be if we continue to fetishize peer-review. Peer-review is important in many cases, but it shouldn't be a goal in of itself. The goal should always be good science, and if that is achieved better through peer-review, or through repositories, or even blogs is a different question.

As members of the #OpenScience  community, we really need to focus on replacing the bottom tier of publishing with other alternatives. My preferred alternative is blogs and blog aggregators.

/via +Ethan Siegel and +Paul Minda /cc +John Baez +David Basanta +Piotr Migdal +Jacob Scott +Open Science Federation 
6
Jacob Scott's profile photoPaul Minda's profile photoDavid Basanta's profile photoTheresa Liao's profile photo
7 comments
 
The bottom tier of #OpenScience  should be the arXiv and the upcoming #bioarxiv  .  The real problem here is that publications are the currency in academia, and people don't take the time to value the work itself, they just look to see if it's published - then the only thing they do is check if it is a high impact journal, or other - and the other doesn't matter what.  We have to change the way we value these things or else people will continue to pass off crap like this (and people will continue to let them, as long as the money flows).

A distant family member recently tried to get me involved in some pyramid scam for some silly herbal cureall called #protandim  (basically just a random mixture of herbs) that has 'scientific proof' of working.  One of the papers was in PLoS One, but the rest were pay-for-pub crap like this article is about...  if the scientific community can't even police ourselves, how can we expect lay-folk and policy makers to parse this stuff?

Scary.
 
And, I just tweeted about this article and have been talking about it... ugh.
 
As a friend of mine pointed out, the creator of the Fake study did not employ proper scientific methodology... There was no control group...he should have submitted it to traditional journals, like Science...
 
We have to realise that peer-review is not the last line of defence of science but the first. A peer reviewed paper on any given topic is not the last word on that topic, it doesn't make it dusted and settled. A good piece of science should present a result that should be interesting enough so that other scientists reproduce the experiments, validate them using a different system/approach or generally try to add weight to whatever assertion has been made.

When designing a new math model, if one key biological assumption relays on only one piece of research, be it published on Nature or PLoS ONE, I feel a lot less comfortable. Ideally you should have a number of independent pieces of research pointing to a given idea.
 
+Paul Minda, what you just mentioned is exactly the topic of a blog post by @michael eisen that I posted to Google+ earlier on today.
 
+Artem Kaznatcheev, when you mention that better science can be achieved through preprint servers, blogs or peer review I would say that you will always need some form of peer review. But this can be done via traditional journal-driven peer review or via blogs. It doesn't really matter where the expert feedback comes from but the more the better.
Add a comment...