3 Burst results for "Melbourne Frisco Journal"

"melbourne frisco journal" Discussed on Science Friction

Science Friction

07:12 min | 1 year ago

"melbourne frisco journal" Discussed on Science Friction

"Junk. hunk is the science in predatory journals. You and colleagues have have conducted a study to analyze the quality of the research that the studies that Mike it into that are accepted by predatory journals. What's striking observations? Did you make the Quick Tanko. Messages at the quality of reporting of these articles is really horrendously bad epidemiologist David Moa at the University of Ottawa. And when we compare that to do what we might consider is the legitimate literature it. It's very very much worse. And that's not to say that there aren't problems in the quality of reporting sorting of Legitimate Journal. There are but when we moved to predatory journals it suggests that there's the 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 is perhaps not going on many of these papers. These are funded by Reputable agencies and so in a country like Canada where much research is paid out of You taxpayer dollars. It's really very very wasteful. It scientifically very problematic won't be seeing won't be cited and of course it's a waste of money any and it. It may also contribute to sort of adding layers of 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 science. If you have an agenda A nonscientific agenda agenda pseudoscientific agenda. You can use predatory publishers to publish your work. You know two of the biggest open questions in in science are what 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 in 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 are knows. 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 and they're published. There's some out there that would happily publish your paper saying that. Vaccines 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 ride it and they'll publish as long as you. Pay The fee David. Mo- assays that like fake news scientists and citizens and clinicians and now struggling to distinguish fact from fiction in predatory publications and he wants a global observatory. Set Up to scrutinize they practices the problem. Is that many of these predatory predatory journals they are now making their way into Trusted sources over example for many researchers clinicians enjoy patients. They may look a pubmed put out by the National Library of medicine. The United States and big data rice of scientific pipers a huge database. And and what we see is that they're getting infiltrated. With articles from predatory journals they are funded by esteemed institutions funding institutions such as the National Institutes of health. And what is the patient to do. What's a 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. Geoffrey beale believes makes international will survive despite the recent US federal fifty million dollar court ruling against them but we'll save science from they sorts of publishers of predatory journals. I don't see the problem going away. In fact. In some a lot of countries the open access advocates have been successful flagging governments. To pass laws requiring federally funded work to be published in open access journals. So they're 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 in the predatory journals whether by mistake or or intentionally in they will be the market the market is there and it's encoded in law now increasingly so they had a we stop the open access movement? which many says a positive thing you don't From being infiltrated by predatory publishes. I don't know a way to stop them. Publishers have freedom of the press. And there's really no laws. They're not breaking any laws in most cases unless they engage in and identity theft or other things like that but for the most part they're they're completely sanctioned by by governments because of freedom of the press. Uh John Behan. 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 ooh that no one ever sees happened behind a curtain and results in yesterday. No I think we may have to really put some effort into alternative models and they do exist. I it's just that that's a big culture change. You could make pure review transparent for example you can have the review part of the record of the paper. Let's really embarrassing harassing. It's scary for most scientists to think of a worldwide. That's the norm. So there's a lot of resistance there are certainly if it's on the to open up that whole peer review prices Isis and in fact even crowd source at. Yeah that's one way forward another would be you have some kind of Global Auditing System. Where you know someone like me 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 likely to happen because everyone has to agree to do it well in some sense? Some might be surprised to hear that it's not happening at all and that anyone everyone pretty much anyone could establish a scientific journal put it online make it look legit and start making money. Oh Yeah you and I could make a journal right now. I can and fifteen minutes to wordpress site and attach a bank count to it. I mean what he reckon these a fancy name. What should we used? Ralian Million Journal of Melbourne San Francisco Melbourne Frisco Journal where we can work. On that the John Bohannon Geoffrey Beale and David Moa joining may today and thank you for your ears. Thanks to co-produce Jane Lee Talk to me on twitter at the tash cashew Mitchell or email me at the science friction website. And I'm back with all spanking brand new shows twenty twenty next week June in shared the podcasting getting touch by..

David Moa Geoffrey beale United States Legitimate Journal University of Ottawa Mike Million Journal of Melbourne Canada National Institutes of health John Bohannon Melbourne Frisco Journal San Francisco twitter tash cashew Mitchell National Library of medicine John Behan Jane Lee Isis
"melbourne frisco journal" Discussed on Science Friction

Science Friction

07:12 min | 1 year ago

"melbourne frisco journal" Discussed on Science Friction

"Junk thank you seem predatory channel you in colleague have conducted a study to analyze the quality of the research that the studies that Mike hitting two that are directed by predatory journals. What talking observations did you make? The Quick Tanko messages at the quality of reporting of these articles is really horrendously. Bad Epidemiologist David Moa at the University of Ottawa. And when we compare that to do what we might consider. Is the legitimate literature it. It's very very much worse. And that's not to say that there aren't problems in the quality of reporting noting of Legitimate Journal with our our but when we moved to predatory journals it suggests that there's Do 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 is perhaps not going on many of these papers. These are funded by Reputable agencies and so in a country like Canada were much research is paid out of You you know taxpayer dollars. 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 any and it. It may also contribute to sort of adding layers of fakeness to what people are trying to. That is the truth because they don't conduct a proper peer review and their publishing bogus science. If you have an agenda A nonscientific agenda agenda pseudoscientific agenda. You can use predatory publishers to publish your work. You know two of the biggest open questions in in science are what 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 in their big big questions in cosmology and physics the biggest Clinton's of all I think so but those questions have been answered many times in predatory journals or knows 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. Vaccines 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 as long as you. Pay The fee David. Maui day that like fake news Danz and Peterson's and clinician and now struggling to distinguish fact from fiction in predatory publications and he wants a Global Observatory that up to scrutinize they practices the problem. Is that many of these predatory predatory journals they are now making their way into Trusted sources over example for many researchers clinicians wins patients. They may look a pubmed product brother National Library Medicine. The United States and big data of pipers a huge database. And 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 a 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 beal believed mcteer. National will survive despite the recent you with federal fifty million dollar court ruling against them but will die. From NATO's of publishes of Predatory Janelle. I don't see the problem going away. In fact. In some a lot of countries the open access advocates have been successful. Salaam getting governments to pass laws requiring federally funded work to be published in open access journals. So they're they're in a when the predatory publishers here about these laws they are ecstatic about them because it helps them. Because certain percentage of the people are going to be publishing in in the predatory journals whether by mistake or or intentionally in they will be the market the market is there and it's encoded in law now increasingly so they had a we stop the open access movement. which many as a positive thing you don't from being infiltrated by predatory publishes? I don't know a way to stop them. Publishers have freedom of the press. And there's really no laws. They're not breaking any laws in most cases unless they engage in identity theft or other things like that but for the most part they're they're completely sanctioned by by governments because of freedom of the press. Uh John 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 do that you know no one ever sees happened behind a curtain and results in yes or no I think we may have to really put some effort into alternative models and they do exist. I it's just that that's a big culture change. You could make transparent for example you could have the review part of the record of the paper and it's really embarrassing harassing. It's scary for most scientists to think of a world. That's the norm. So there's a lot of resistance. They're out Bentley. If it's on to open up that whole peer reviewed pride it can impact David Crowds. That's one way or another would be you have some kind of Global Auditing System. Where you know someone like me not doing a sting operation like I did just continuously rolling along to find out if you're keeping your word of doing period view? That's expensive and unlikely unlikely to happen because everyone has to agree to do it. Well income since Proud to he that it's not happening at all and that anyone everyone pretty much anyone could establish a scientific journal put it online make it look legit dot making money. Oh Yeah you and I could make a journal right now. I can and fifteen minutes. What wordpress site and attach your bank account to it? I mean reckon fancy name what should we kill. Trillion Trillion Alien Journal of Melbourne Melbourne Frisco Journal of where we can work on that the John Bohannon Geoffrey Beale and David Moa joining me today and thank you for your thank to co produce. The Jane Lee Talk to me on twitter at Natasha. Hash Mitchell or email me that the friction website and I'm back with old brand new show for twenty twenty. Make tweak gene shared the podcasting getting touch by..

David Moa Alien Journal of Melbourne Mel Legitimate Journal University of Ottawa Mike National Institutes of health Canada NATO David United States David Crowds Jeffrey beal National Library Medicine Clinton twenty twenty John Bohannon Hash Mitchell Jane Lee
"melbourne frisco journal" Discussed on Science Friction

Science Friction

07:30 min | 2 years ago

"melbourne frisco journal" Discussed on Science Friction

"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.

Mike United States ABC Chang Melbourne Frisco journal San francisco journal of Melbourne LA NC Canada Melissa John hannan Jeffrey Bill Twitter Hong Kong Nastro Joan Bohannon Richard Govan