At the Guardian: A big problem with murky science journals is that they publish climate deniers
|January 29, 2018||Posted by News under Climate change, Culture, Global Warming, Intelligent Design, Peer review|
Oh? From Graham Readfearn at the Guardian:
Deniers have found a platform in emerging publications that publish without rigorous review
Journals that are “open access” make their money by charging academics or institutions a fee for peer reviewing and checking submitted academic manuscripts, and then publishing them. There are many reputable publishers working this way.
But this murky world has a predator of its own – climate science deniers looking to take advantage of the questionable quality controls in return for getting their work published in what the publishers claim are “peer-reviewed journals” but that, in reality, are not.
It might make very little difference if they were “peer-reviewed” according to Readfearn’s standards, given how things are going with peer review in general.
Another of the publishers used by Mörner, known as Juniper Publishers, was one of those to be caught in a hoax in 2017 when it accepted a “Dr Doll” on to its editorial board. Dr Doll was a fake veterinary surgeon created by Curtin University’s Prof Mike Daube with a profile based on his dog, a Staffordshire terrier.
Daube told the Huffington Post he had orchestrated the hoax “to expose shams of this kind, which prey on the gullible, especially young or naive academics and those from developing countries”. More.
Sure, but the Sokal hoax on presumably legitimate journals is now over 20 years old.
Guardian writers should keep up to date with Retraction Watch. “Murky” science journals that sometimes publish dissidents are hardly the big problem.
See also: Peer review “unscientific”: Tough words from editor of Nature
At Times Higher: Peer review an “ineffective and unworthy” institution, some reforms proposed