Mike, United States, ABC discussed on Science Friction

Science Friction
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Junk is the saw it seem predatory journals. You in colleagues have conducted a study to analyze the quality of the research. The studies that Mike eating too that are accepted by predatory journals what's striking divisions. Did you make the quick Chang? Co messages at the quality reporting of these articles is really horrendously bad epidemiologist dive moa at the university of oughta when we compare that to what we might consider as legitimate literature. It's very very much worse. And that's not to say that there aren't problems in the quality reporting of legitimate journal are, but when we moved to predatory journals it suggests that there's the screening that's going on. So for example, we consider peer review in a sense of screen of the integrity and the scientific composer of the research. Which is perhaps not going on many of these papers are funded by reputable agencies and so in a country like Canada where much research is paid out of taxpayer dollars. It it's really very very wasteful it scientifically, very problematic. It won't be seeing won't be cited. And of course, it's a waste of money. And it may also contribute to sort of adding layers fakeness to what people are trying to get at is the truth because they don't conduct a proper period view and their publishing bogus signs. If you have an agenda, nonscientific agenda or a pseudoscientific agenda. You can use predatory publishers to publish your work. You know to the biggest open questions in in science are what is the nature of dark matter. And what is the nature of dark energy? This is from cosmology. And there's no. Scientific consensus as to the answers to those two questions and their big big questions in cosmology and physics the biggest questions of all I think so but those questions have been answered many times in predatory journals. There's lots of people writing articles claiming that they've discovered the answers to those questions in the predatory publishers are happy to accept them as long as the authors pay the fee, and they're published. There's some out there that would happily publish your paper saying that that scenes 'cause autism or that there's no global warming occurring or that nuclear power is is going to destroy everybody a bread causes cancer. Anything you want to write you can write it, and they'll publish it long as you pay the fee dated Melissa's that like fake news. Scientists NC sins end clinicians and Nastro going to distinguish fact from fiction in predatory publications and he wants a global observatory set up to scrutinize they practices. The the problem is that many of these predatory journals. They are now making their way into trusted sources over example, for many researchers clinicians patients they may look at a PubMed put out by the national library medicine, the United States and big data vice of scientific papers a huge daughter basin. And what we see is that they're getting infiltrated with articles from predatory journals that are funded by esteemed institutions funding institutions such as the national institutes of health. And what is the patient to do? What's clinician to do will these people make decisions based on on on that sort of evidence? And I think that that's an incredibly problematic. Jeffrey Bill believes I'm mixing national will survive despite the recent US federal fifty million. Court ruling against them. But we'll save science from the sorts of publishes of predatory journals. I don't see the problem going away. In fact, in some in a lot of countries open. Access advocates have been successful at getting governments to pass laws requiring federally funded work to be published in open access journals. So there when the predatory publishers here about these laws, they are ecstatic about them because it helps them because a certain percentage of the people are going to be publishing in the predatory journals whether by mistake or or intentionally they will be the market the market is there, and it's encoded in LA now, increasingly so then had a we still the excess movement which many says a pulse ity thing you don't from being infiltrated predatory publishes. I don't know way to stop them publishers have freedom of the press. And there's really no. Laws. They're not breaking the laws in most cases, unless they engage in dentistry Pfaff door other things like that. But for the most part they're completely sanctioned by by governments because of freedom of the press. John hannan. I think we're gonna have to reinvent how we do things this old fashioned way of submitting a paper and having some mysterious peer review that no one ever sees happened behind curtain and results in. Yes. Or no, I think we may have to really put some effort into alternative models, and they do exist. It's just that. That's a big culture change, you could make pure review. Transparent. Example, you could have the review part of the record of the paper. That's really embarrassing. It's scary for most scientists to think of a world that's the norm. So there's a lot of resistance, certainly, if it's on to open up that whole he reviewed prices, and in fact, even Kratz souls, that's one way forward. Another would be you have some kind of global auditing system where you know, someone like me doing a sting operation like I did is just continuously rolling along to find out. If you're keeping your word of doing period view, that's expensive and. Unlikely to happen because everyone has to agree. To do it. Well, in some sense some base opposed to he that it's not happening at all. And that anyone pretty much anyone could establish a scientific journal poodle online. Mike it look legit and start making money, and I could make journal right now, I can do fifteen minutes. What were dress side and attach Bank out to? I mean, what do you reckon? Well on these fancy name. Should we use trillion journal of Melbourne? San francisco. Melbourne Frisco journal of. Well, we can work on that. Joan Bohannon, Geoffrey Beal and David moa joining me today and thanks for your east to the world conference on research integrity, ease on soon in Hong Kong again during of solutions beheads thanks to co produce John les studio engineer, Richard Govan and talked me on Twitter at Natasha Mitchell amount via the science fiction, website and share our podcast do that by. You've been listening to an ABC podcast. Discover more great ABC podcasts. Live radio and exclusives. On the ABC. Listen up.

Coming up next