Hoax reveals 'Wild West' of open-access science journals

[Newsjock]

Source: Toronto Star

Over the past year, a study describing the astounding anti-cancer properties of a chemical found in lichen was submitted to hundreds of open-access scientific journals.

There was just one problem. The study was garbage — riddled with blatant errors, meaningless graphs and ethical red flags — and its authors were imaginary.

The paper was a hoax designed to flush out journals that charge authors a fee for publishing their work but fail to perform any peer review, the process of blind evaluation designed to screen out bad science.

... Of the 304 journals where the paper was submitted, 157 accepted it for publication. Only 36 provided reviewer comments identifying the study’s glaring flaws; among those journals, 16 accepted the paper anyway.

Read more: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/10/03/hoax_reveals_wild_west_of_openaccess_science_journals.html

[Cerridwen]

1. The Lancet. andrew wakefield.

It's not just the internet that has peer review issues.

[longship]

2. Thankfully is self-correcting.

And thankfully there is still real science journalism in the UK.

Those things are what gave rise to the Wakefield collapse... except in the USA where he can get legions of kooks and quacks to buy into (literally!) his "vaccine is evil" narrative. Sometimes one just recruits a Booger-picking Playboy Bunny to be ones spokesperson. But she also happens to be a true believer of Indigo Children... er, eh, she used to be.

Sometimes idiocy is just idiocy.

[progressoid]

3. Oy - Indigo Children

Its been a while since I've seen that mentioned on DU. Although, I think there are still some believers here.

[Cerridwen]

4. It took The Lancet 10 years to refute wakefield.

By then the damage had been done...and then some.

As I said, it's not just the internet "peer reviewed journals" that have issues.

A story from my real life:

I worked with a Ph.D. who sent a hoax study to a peer reviewed journal in his field. The subject of his study? How the peer review process has failed to detect poorly designed or outright wrong research. He made up the numbers. His paper was peer reviewed and published. He spent the next several years teaching in the "outer Mongolia" of his field. They don't take too kindly to seeing themselves in the mirror.

I have more stories about falsified numbers to get research grants (and getting them), about using grant money to have an out-of-town spouse or significant other come into town to teach a class so they can have some time together, the Ph.D. who didn't think her travel to Canada from the US was foreign travel because "they use the dollar!" and the Ph.D. who didn't know how to use a 3-hole punch. Ph.D. and peer review; not sacred nor hallowed ground.

Not limited to medical research. Mostly driven by $$$$$.