Some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so

Some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so

WHETHER to get a promotion or merely a foot in the door, academics have long known that they must publish papers, typically the more the better. Tallying scholarly publications to evaluate their authors has been common since the invention of scientific journals in the 17th century. So, too, has the practice of journal editors asking independent, usually anonymous, experts to scrutinise manuscripts and reject those deemed flawed—a quality-control process now known as peer review. Of late, however, this habit of according importance to papers labelled as “peer reviewed” has become something of a gamble. A rising number of journals that claim to review submissions in this way do not bother to do so. Not coincidentally, this seems to be leading some academics to inflate their publication lists with papers that might not pass such scrutiny.

For more on the questionable ethics of STEM academia see this thread on Skeptiko.

Is it just me or are art, science and critique really becoming cheap, tacky and, somehow, too easy?

The Internet (together with mobile devices) has made a big difference to us. We've been granted the boon of access to almost unlimited information and nearly instantaneous global communication. And what do we do with it? Facebook and Twitter.

Isn't it interesting that the "skeptics", self appointed guardians of Science, failed to keep Science ethically/professional sound....

Isn't it interesting that the "skeptics", self appointed guardians of Science, failed to keep Science ethically/professional sound....

That's because they are not guardians of science but guardians of their ideology. As long as that ideology is not threatened, then anything goes.

Isn't it interesting that the "skeptics", self appointed guardians of Science, failed to keep Science ethically/professional sound....

Unfortunately, people don't listen to the skeptics. But I'm glad you agree more should:

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...ical-sins/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/faking-peer-review/

etc, etc

Unfortunately, people don't listen to the skeptics. But I'm glad you agree more should:

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...ical-sins/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/faking-peer-review/

etc, etc

Neither of those articles is about journals falsely pretending to do peer-review. The first doesn't even mention peer-review, as far as I can see, while the second is about the authors of papers giving the editors fake email addresses for suggested reviewers, and thereby hoodwinking them into getting reviews written (presumably) by themselves.

I think it would help if Scibord S Patel would explain what s/he meant by...

Isn't it interesting that the "skeptics", self appointed guardians of Science, failed to keep Science ethically/professional sound....

Which "skeptics" in particular are being referred to here, because I've been trying to work out what this sentence actually means, with no luck.

Any details would be appreciated.

Neither of those articles is about journals falsely pretending to do peer-review. The first doesn't even mention peer-review, as far as I can see, while the second is about the authors of papers giving the editors fake email addresses for suggested reviewers, and thereby hoodwinking them into getting reviews written (presumably) by themselves.

The post I was responding to suggested that “skeptics” had no interest in keeping science honest. Patently ridiculous. I could come up with dozens of other examples. I have no idea, but the piece in the OP could well have been written by someone most on here would describe as a “skeptic”. 

Is the list of troublesome publications published anywhere? I suspect there will be a strong correlation with those publications and low Impact Factor scores. This would at least show that the system is, whilst not perfect, broadly functional.

The post I was responding to suggested that “skeptics” had no interest in keeping science honest.

It was obviously referring to the article posted at the start of the thread, about journals not peer-reviewing papers.