Science is in great turmoil. The quality that we had assumed existed in traditional peer review has clearly proven to be flawed, across a wide range of journals and publishers. There are many reasons for why the literature is, as I see it, in a highly corrupted - academically speaking - state. And it needs serious correction. There is also increasing evidence that editors have also been / are part of this problem, that all parties are gaming the impact factor, and that some publishers appear to be seeking more comfort in profit than in taking care of the literature's academic integrity. Although there are dozens of blogs and web-sites that discuss pockets of issues, in my view, three sites offer insight, with regular updates, on the state of science publishing, and why it is in this state of turmoil. I am of the opinion that even if you disagree with the sites, or their owners, that they should be regularly consulted.
Retraction Watch:
http://retractionwatch.com/
PubPeer:
https://pubpeer.com/
scholarlyoa.com:
http://scholarlyoa.com/
What do you feel about these sites?
Do you feel that they advance, or damage, science?
Why do you think more such sites do not exist, or do you think that such sites should not exist?
(Disclaimer: I have absolutely no association or affiliation with these sites, or their owners, although I regularly use them).
Dear Jaime, can we always assume that reviewers have all the information that authors are using to write the paper? Do they really check that the info is correctly cited? I believe that it's the author's responsibility to do correct accurate writing. So far, I have found scholarlyoa to be quite useful. I would like all my papers to be reviewed. I believe that we benefit to some extent from peer review, but when 2 reviewers suggest entirely different changes, we have to come to the best decision on our own. From mobile. Thanks.
Hello Miranda, thank you for your input. I have three questions for you:
1) How do you know the qualification of the peer reviewers of your paper?
Note carefully that I am not calling for the removal or destruction of traditional peer review. I am simply critical that as it stands, and as it has stood, it has failed quite dismally to ensure quality that we expected.
2) Indeed, I am not arguing about the usefulness of scholarlyoa.com, only about its accuracy. Do you know exactly how each journal and publisher was added to Jeffrey Beall's lists? Do you see a precise list of criteria listed for each and every one of those entries? Do you see the list of panel members who decide what should, or should not, be on those lists? Again, I think we need to question more than just the surface.
3) Why are there no Elsevier, Taylor and Francis / Informa, Wiley Blackwell, or Springer-Nature journals on the Beall list, do you think?
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva (2016) The blasé nature of Retraction Watch’s editorial policies and the risk to sinking journalistic standards. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 7(6): 11-14.
http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/9568/9226
DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n6p11
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309731227
Article The blasé nature of Retraction Watch’s editorial policies an...
SCIRP, a Beall-listed "predatory" GOA, sent me these two links to explain their defense against being listed as "predatory":
http://blog.scirp.org/?s=beall
http://www.scholarlyoa.net/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor