News Peer review

Critics say sting on open access journals misses larger point

Spread the love

here.

In a statement, Ms. Hughes said Wolters Kluwer was “taking quick action to review” its processes with its publishing-services company, Medknow Publications. Wolters Kluwer and Medknow had “no involvement in the creation or writing of content or in the peer-review process,” she said, and such matters are “entirely for the editor and editorial boards of the applicable client journal who act independently of Medknow and Wolters Kluwer.”

Mr. Bohannon said he had heard the opposite from the journal editors he had asked to explain their decision to publish his sham science. Most of them explained that the process was outside their control, and some asserted that the journal owners were simply using their names on the publications, he said.

“It’s a shell game,” Mr. Bohannon said. “Wolters Kluwer Health can blame Medknow. Medknow can blame the journal editor. The editor can blame Wolters Kluwer Health. Who knows who’s truly to blame?”

Let’s start with trying to find out the truth.

One Reply to “Critics say sting on open access journals misses larger point

  1. 1
    Barb says:

    MedKnow Publications claims to have double-blind peer-review, which would be a good thing (http://www.medknow.com/servicesmrs.asp). Their peer review system is based in India (www.journalonweb.com).

Leave a Reply