Deeply flawed research into cancer wonder drug accepted by science journals ‘despite obvious errors’

As a warning to those scouring the internet for science to back up their ideas, it appears a new generation of “Scientific” publishers are just happy to receive the paper submission fees rather than actually read the content.

Backs up the “I read it on the internet it must be true” problem.

Backs up the “I read it on the internet it must be true” problem.

Indeed. Which is why I don’t believe it.

To be honest this is nothing new. This is why serious researchers only publish [or try to] in renowned journals etc, rather than online-only publishers and some of the newer ones.

yeah; you don’t touch anything without a reasonable ISI

as with all of this though it is not the scientists that you need to worry about, but the armchair experts and lazy media taking things as good because it’s published.

As a scientist, this is actually a validation of the scientific method. It shows that renowned journals are not just trading on their reputation, but actually adding robustness to the science reported within them.

The number of emails I receive at work each day from these open access journals fishing for business is frankly astonishing. I had always just dismissed them from the standpoint of “I’ll send my research to as good a journal as I can, so this is just annoying spam” standpoint, rather than the “These journals publish bogus rubbish so why would I want my work in there?” perspective.

Pretty depressing really, and they do affect the ‘real’ journals too. Scientists are under so much pressure to deliver their own work that there is precious little time left to commit the time taken to properly review for journals. The more of these nonsense journals that there are, the more stretched reviewers become, and the less time they can give to reviewing critically for the main journals. Personally, I won’t submit nor review for any journal not listed in the ISI.

To be honest this is nothing new. This is why serious researchers only publish [or try to] in renowned journals etc, rather than online-only publishers and some of the newer ones.

All I’m going to say is Joachim Boldt, as a reminder that just because something is published in a decent journal, doesn’t mean it’s not fabricated nonsense. Everything needs to be read carefully.

Nice experiment – not so much for showing that the Journal of Bolloxology is, in fact, full of bollox; but for underlining how the open access charade is open to abuse.
They should have sent the bogus paper to Nature – probably would have flown in with flying colours.

Ah good, I’ve been looking for somewhere to publish my findings on Phlogiston degradation effects on Climate Change.

Bad Science!! Speaking of which, is that still going? I’ve just looked at the website and the last entry is July 2013. It would be a shame if it came to an end!

They should have sent the bogus paper to Nature – probably would have flown in with flying colours.

^^This. Does tend to be governed by the name at the bottom of the paper.

Conversely, not everything published in an open access journal is dross, some of it is properly peer-reviewed.

A lot of high-ranking journals are trading on past glories these days. BMJ and Lancet, for example.

The number of emails I receive at work each day from these open access journals fishing for business is frankly astonishing. I had always just dismissed them from the standpoint of “I’ll send my research to as good a journal as I can, so this is just annoying spam” standpoint, rather than the “These journals publish bogus rubbish so why would I want my work in there?” perspective.

+1

They should have sent the bogus paper to Nature – probably would have flown in with flying colours.

Actually it’s true – proper investigation would have used “proper” journals as a control

They should have sent the bogus paper to Nature – probably would have flown in with flying colours.

+2.

Also interesting to note that this investigation was carried out by Science, one of the ‘old guard’ of journals with a vested interest in keeping subscription services running by ‘exposing’ the lax peer review of open access…I’m not saying one is right and the other system is wrong (they both have their advantages and flaws), just highlighting the potential for the investigation to be biased towards ‘bad’ findings for open access journals if it’s done by a rival.

If the article had been sent to a hundred subscription journals people would have noticed because the same reviewers would likely have received it if it got past the editor.

I wouldn’t say I’m an expert on this stuff but

In general surely the world rarely changes for 1 paper. This is often where the media falls down. One paper if done reasonably carefully can produce a results that in time is shown not to be valid. Hence the need for follow up studies and meta studies

I think the best point raised above is the pressure on academics to publish without the same pressure to review

I get ones from China rather than India, once theyve got your email they wont let go!

fortunately most people just ignore these journals , the worrying thing is that the media just like a good scare story

the peer review system is most definately flawed and the old boys network is in full effect and needs cleaning up, but on the whole it works pretty well at filtering out the rubbish

most scientists I know are generally very sceptical of any paper they read, journal clubs can get very bitchy!

I feel sorry for all the poor sods who had to review this guy’s made up paper. Some of them will have done a proper job and suggested the paper for rejection – taking up several unpaid hours of their own time. All so Science can publish an unscientific hatchet job on OA.

if it got past the editor.

And this is the crux of the point. It is more likely (but I admit, not certain), that the higher ranked the journal, the higher the quality of the AE team. I’ve had some long and in-depth debates with editors about my own papers. Generally, those at the higher end journals are happier to take a step back and make a more considered view, often contradicting a reviewer if what they’ve written is clearly bollocks, and then suggesting the appropriate improvements to make the MS acceptable.

Conversely, at ‘lower’ journals (still not OA though), I’ve had papers chucked out where it’s clear the reviewer has made a fundamental mistake, and actually had more success at a higher impact outlet. It is a lottery, but on the whole, it works. And in the end, my view is only n=1, regardless of my own anecdotal experience of the process.

Science article is here, appropriately open access:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

Reading it I think it is a credible piece – some shameful sheeeit going on in the scientific journal underclass, and it deserves to have someone shine a spotlight down there. Whether that someone should be working for Science I’m not so sure. It’s a bit like Real Madrid covertly investigating Accrington Stanley for possible un-sound training practices.

[milk marketing board] Accrington Stanley, who are they? [/milk marketing board]