1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
AVIVA Semi-Finals: National ME/FM Action Network is competing for $100,000
The National ME/FM Action Network in Canada is competing for $100,000 for biomedical research of ME and FM in the Aviva Community Fund contest. With thanks to all who helped, they made it through the first round of voting into the Semi-Finals.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Spoof articles accepted for publication. BMJ article

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by peggy-sue, Oct 9, 2013.

  1. peggy-sue

    peggy-sue

    Messages:
    2,494
    Likes:
    2,876
    Scotland
    Interesting article published in the BMJ today.
    You need to be registered to read it.

    http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5975?etoc=

    Copied and pasted from the BMJ
    1. Nigel Hawkes
    Author Affiliations
    A spoof medical paper full of easily detectable flaws was submitted in a sting operation to 304 open access journals and accepted by more than half of them.
    The results, reported in Science1 by journalist John Bohannon, reveal “an emerging Wild West in academic publishing,” he says, with mushrooming numbers of new journals profiting from the open access model, in which authors rather than readers pay the cost of publication.
    Bohannon invented the names of authors and affiliations—such as Ocorrafoo Cobange of Wassee Institute of Medicine—and submitted in their names variations of the same basic paper claiming to have found anticancer properties in a molecule extracted from a lichen.
    The paper contained obvious flaws, such as claiming to have demonstrated a dose-response relationship when the data showed nothing of the sort. To simulate the poor English of some developing world authors, the text was translated into French by Google Translate, then back into English.
    The paper written by “Cobange” was accepted by the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals, with only superficial changes sought, while other versions were accepted by journals hosted by well known publishers such as Sage and Elsevier. “Acceptance was the norm, not the exception,” writes Bohannon. It was even accepted by journals in completely alien fields, such as the Journal of Experimental and Clinical Assisted Reproduction.
    The Sage journal that accepted the paper was the Journal of international Medical Research, which sent a letter of acceptance that asked for no changes but included an invoice for $3100 (£1914; €2293).
    The journal’s editor in chief, Malcolm Lader, emeritus professor at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, told Bohannon, “I take full responsibility for the fact this spoof paper slipped through the editing process.” Acceptance would not have guaranteed publication, he added, because it would have been subject to technical editing that is detailed and expensive. The $3100 fee was to cover the cost of this process.
    Many of the journals conceal their geographic location, despite having names such as the American Journal of Medical and Dental Sciences (actually published in Pakistan). About a third of those targeted are in India, of which 64 accepted the paper and only 15 rejected it. Drug Invention Today, which appears on the Elsevier platform, is edited by an Indian professor. Elsevier told Bohannon that it reviewed journals before they were hosted on the Elsevier platform and as a result of the sting would be conducting another review.
    As soon as papers were accepted, they were withdrawn by Bohannon, so none was actually published. Among the journals that rejected the paper were PLoS One and two journals published by Hindawi, an open access publisher in Cairo that employs 1000 staff and publishes 559 journals. Paul Peters, of Hindawi, told Bohannon, “It is a relief to know our system is working.”
    Of the 304 papers submitted, 157 had been accepted and 98 rejected by the time Science went to press. Of the remaining 49 journals to which articles were sent, 29 appear to be defunct and 20 had yet to reply. The majority of decisions were taken without peer review, with only 36 of the 304 submissions generating comments that recognised the flaws. And 16 of those were accepted despite the referees’ comments.
    Notes

    Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f5975
    References


    1. Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science2013;342:60-5, doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
      Abstract/FREE Full Text
    end copy and paste.
     
    helen1, Valentijn and Simon like this.
  2. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,865
    Likes:
    12,461
    South of England
    Thanks peggy-sue

    I can read it without registration.

    Also, the cited Science article is free to read:

    Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
    John Bohannon
    A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals.
    Science 4 October 2013:
    Vol. 342 no. 6154 pp. 60-65
    DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
     
  3. peggy-sue

    peggy-sue

    Messages:
    2,494
    Likes:
    2,876
    Scotland
    ok, Bob - thanks.
    I'm completely computer / internetty / bloggy / signy-in-stuff illiterate. :)

    I found this (copied and pasted in blue) sentence particularly interesting - because of the occupation (Psychiatrist) and place (London) of the person...

    And we all do know an awful lot of rubbish which should never have got through proper peer review has been published - when reviewed by certain psychiatrists at top levels in the UK.

    The Sage journal that accepted the paper was the Journal of international Medical Research, which sent a letter of acceptance that asked for no changes but included an invoice for $3100 (£1914; €2293).
    The journal’s editor in chief, Malcolm Lader, emeritus professor at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, told Bohannon, “I take full responsibility for the fact this spoof paper slipped through the editing process.”
     
    Bob and Valentijn like this.
  4. peggy-sue

    peggy-sue

    Messages:
    2,494
    Likes:
    2,876
    Scotland
    Is this an example of laziness?
    Trusting the authors to be truthful, just accepting what they say they have done, and found, and not checking the data?

    Or is it ignorance?
    Not understanding what was wrong with it in the first place?

    And which was it that happened when PACE got published?
    (or, really, anything by the weasel and his wee nurse and his mates and the (bio)psychological school of recursive citations...)
     
    maryb and Bob like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page