Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience

Archae

(46,328 posts) Tue Apr 19, 2016, 10:55 AM Apr 2016

New entry at the Skeptic's Dictionary...

Those "scientific journals" that are pay-to-play.

No matter how crackpot an idea, they get published.

I've seen these "journals" cited in threads about vaccines, GMO's and homeopathy.

predatory open access journals

"OMICS is a Biological concept which, in combination with other disciplines, provides the basis for Genomics, Proteomics, and Metabolomics." --Dr. Srinubabu, founder of OMICS International

Predatory open access journals "exist for the sole purpose of profit, not the dissemination of high-quality research findings and furtherance of knowledge. These predators generate profits by charging author fees, also known as article processing charges (APCs), that far exceed the cost of running their low-quality, fly-by-night operations."* Jeffrey Beall of the Auraria Library at the University of Colorado, Denver, has compiled a list of these predatory journals. As of April 16, 2016, Beall's list includes over 1,000 such journals. Beall has also compiled a list of predatory publishers, known as Beall's List, and it too contains more than 1,000 names.

http://skepdic.com/predatoryjournals.html

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New entry at the Skeptic's Dictionary... (Original Post) Archae Apr 2016 OP

How to tell at first glance whether the paper you are reading is from a predatory journal: DetlefK Apr 2016 #1

'OMICS' is also responsible for economics, which damages its reputation muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #2

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)

1. How to tell at first glance whether the paper you are reading is from a predatory journal:

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 07:55 AM

Apr 2016

1. The time-span between the submission of the paper and the publishing of the paper is surprisingly low. For normal papers, it's about 2 months. For a paper from a predatory journal, I have seen going it from submission to publishing in 4 days.

2. The layout looks unprofessional. There is unused space on the page. Real journals do the layout all by themselves and they give the paper a professional, compact and even look.

3. The graphics are bad. For example, the pixel-resolution is so low that you can't see details, even if you zoom in. Or diagrams simply look sloppy, as if the author didn't care what other people think about them.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,320 posts)

2. 'OMICS' is also responsible for economics, which damages its reputation

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 12:07 PM

Apr 2016

However, there's no way it can compete with ology:

Reply to this discussion