Editor, Predatory Journal, DON discussed on Science Friction


You don three. IB Theory and with main attaches Mitchell. We're looking at predatory publishes and the threat. They poke dawn. Goal is sheep in truth so back took don gentlest John by Hannah. And he's Sting Operation Own Predatory Journal mm-hmm. You wrote a psych paper in fact you you actually wrote a computer program to write hundreds of pipers. Yeah actually it spat out thousands. I ended up only needing hundreds. He's computer program changed the authors affiliations chemicals Chantelle and other ingredients fairmont but funding was pretty much time and the world potentially will changing. Yeah it was a thrill Cuba Canada. John I was basically claiming that this chemical that I found in this little lichens little plant plant like creature was able to kill cancer. Cells in solution. So you know in principle you could inject this stuff into your blood like you. Doing chemotherapy be and it would hopefully kill off the cancer cells and I had these very impressed with charts showing the results very impressive. Yeah it fights value the pipe hypoc standard convicting but they will all dated with glaring eras. And this would take literally one minute just one glance really of any reasonable title science. Who was doing peer review of this paper you just look at the numbers representing this charts and they just make no sense at all? Just don't make any sense and the design if the experiment that was fatally flawed too. I mean these are the kind of mistakes that high school stupid make like these. This isn't even college mistakes. This is just like the biggest most most embarrassing scientific mistake imagine. This isn't subtle stuff and then John Wind even I just wanted to like bring it to the next level so at the into the paper I have the authors say that you know. The next thing we're going to do is test. This humans which to any reviewer should be the biggest red flag I mean aside from the fact the science it looks like completely junk. That's just completely unethical. Then he targeted general predatory including two run by tape one cold medicinal chemistry another biology amid the eight-month he admitted ten pipers awake and what happened. Next is incredible incredible. Any reasonable publisher should have looked at that paper and said not in no way on that publishing this a lot of journals. Dd Yes it gives us the very murray doc stats well. The darkest of dark stats is that sixty percent of the publishers accepted. My article did any any of those sixty percent off to you to make any kind of amendments almost never when they did it it involved. Formatting trivial changes often they would asked me to add citations two papers that they'd published which is also really not a good practice but now they almost never did any substantial reviews and even in the Buick that DDP to conduct some kind of Conduct Peer Review John Piper with open accepted. Anyway I even after a damning review. What more to mainstream todd and the publishing L. V. and Daij court out not much to their embarrassment? Yeah it was grim. That was not a great day for Scientific Publishing and so over. The course of that experiment took months to finish. I just sort of got more and more pessimistic about the publishing world. It really changed my view of the whole industry that I was part of some people who a had been caught up in the sting did contact me afterwards effect. We got at least one angry letter to the editor from one of these journals. Yeah that got caught with its pants down but I don't have that much sympathy for them because they had the one job. You know if you're the editor of journal all you gotTa do is withhold the integrity of the journal and clearly weren't doing that as of the more reputable journals a betrayal of trust and. I wonder what you'll respond CANETTI's Oh yeah. Yeah absolutely everyone craft all over the whole thing. How else would they have reacted? It was basically like taking the giant dump on their entire world. A couple of editors lost their jobs but considering that they had jobs that a fake journal. I I don't see that it's such the big loss so it either a handful of us now. In the industry the Predatory publishing industry has not gone away has not left. Scott team fact all indications that it has grown Mac. Delay going strong. If you carried out the sting operation again. What do you think? Oh I think the picture would probably be worse if I were to do it again. Though I'll tell you what I would do is I would Send a sample papers to the the publishers. Who have the more traditional model as well it? It's kind of amazed me that this whole problem that I uncovered was dismissed by many for the simple fact that I hadn't also submitted fake papers to different kinds of journals at so they felt like they were being unfairly picked picked on the people in the Nexus Publishing Movement and Compassionate Movement. Did they think that you had unfairly. Targeted them in particular. Oh yeah absolutely they drag me through the mud. It was really unpleasant claiming that I'm Michelle's for the traditional scientific publishing world which is hilarious if if you've known me at all it's really quite the opposite. I'm quite an advocate for open access everything but whatever it's fine God's gentlest John Bohannon.

Coming up next