There are many challenges in the world of scientific publishing. I’ve spent time focusing on conflict-of-interest in peer review – but this is a fabulous exposé on a rapidly-growing segment of for-profit, predatory journals with no substantial peer-review process whatsoever.
This is more a journalistic project than a scientific study, but it details the results of an experiment performed to determine the rigor of peer review at a number of open-access journals. Open access journals, in contrary to most journals, derive their operating income by charging authors a publication fee – rather than charging for print subscription, reprints, or individual article access. Proponents of this model point to the beneficial effect open-access has on medical knowledge in countries without the means and wealth required to join the first-world scientific community. However, this model has essentially been hijacked by editors who use a predatory process of fraudulent representation to run these journals solely for profit.
This journalist created a fake, flawed, and horribly written (he ran it through Google Translate into French, and back) molecular cancer therapeutics article and submitted it to over 300 open-access journals – half these journals were on a “blacklist” and the remainder were not. Without completely re-iterating the entire story (or the mystery of Grace Groovy), the crux is – nearly every journal on the “blacklist” accepted the fictional article, while journals on the more reliable list rejected it about 2/3rds of the time.
Lovely piece of investigative journalist and an entertaining read – and an excellent description of a growing problem in the realm of scientific integrity.
“Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.summary