Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,178
Sizzler,
You're assuming the size of the board on paper is meaningful and that the board actually has a real function.
[Merged]Peer-reviewed technical paper to appear in mainstream journal
- Thread starter deep
- Start date
Sizzler,
You're assuming the size of the board on paper is meaningful and that the board actually has a real function.
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,178
Mackey,
Assuming you do open up a dialogue with them, I wonder if they'd be amenable to publishing (anonymized or not) the peer reviews (or at least parts of them.) An unusual step to be sure, but not unprecedented, and a good way to help legitimize their process.
Lord God of Hosts and all His little archangels, this strikes me as a bad idea.
They'll never be able to get another peer review done.
Besides, what would it show? If the peer reviewers didn't like it and they published it anyway, it shows them to be money-grubbing weasels. If the reviewers liked it, then it shows Bentham to not have very good judgement when it comes to reviewer selection. Either way, it reflects very badly on Bentham.
For a reputable publisher, "the only way out is through." They should simply admit "we made a mistake" and take their lumps. Everyone understands mistakes and that they happen, even at the best companies. People are much less understanding about attempted defenses of the indefensible.
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
The journal says this about their indexing:
Engineering isn't my field, but doesn't this sound a bit fishy for a journal?
The Open Civil Engineering Journal said:
Engineering isn't my field, but doesn't this sound a bit fishy for a journal?
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
Any more replies from the magazine itself?
Another update
I received a reply from Mr. Alam to my reminder today, and it is not promising.
He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.
I have informed him that, since the authors of dubious papers do not set the standards for journals, that his response is entirely inappropriate, and have reminded him that it is the editors who should be responding.
Thus far, only Mr. Alam has responded to anything, and it appears that he has no idea how real journals operate.
At this point, I am about 80 percent convinced that the Bentham Open Access Journals are merely a vanity publication. I do still have some doubt because there are a great many -- too many! -- professionals listed on their editorial board, and the few I've checked up on appear to be legitimate. I will be taking this discussion to them with or without Mr. Alam, and we will get to the bottom of this.
I received a reply from Mr. Alam to my reminder today, and it is not promising.
He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.
I have informed him that, since the authors of dubious papers do not set the standards for journals, that his response is entirely inappropriate, and have reminded him that it is the editors who should be responding.
Thus far, only Mr. Alam has responded to anything, and it appears that he has no idea how real journals operate.
At this point, I am about 80 percent convinced that the Bentham Open Access Journals are merely a vanity publication. I do still have some doubt because there are a great many -- too many! -- professionals listed on their editorial board, and the few I've checked up on appear to be legitimate. I will be taking this discussion to them with or without Mr. Alam, and we will get to the bottom of this.
They have not forwarded the promised comments, after I wrote.
Classic open loop, we got the money; reader beware.
Score 1 to the 'truthers'. They've paid $600 for the ability to say "We do have a paper in a peer reviewed journal!!!!!"...............
........... followed swiftly by "Neeener neeeener la la la la I'm not listening mary had a little lamb little lamb la la la" as an attempt is made to point out the inadequacies of their paper and it's publication.
........... followed swiftly by "Neeener neeeener la la la la I'm not listening mary had a little lamb little lamb la la la" as an attempt is made to point out the inadequacies of their paper and it's publication.
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
How juvenile.
Sounds like Steven Jones might as well have stuck with the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Mr. Alam would probably have given your letter some professional scrutiny had a $600 money order been included.
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 844
Ultimately, if there is a sub-standard paper published in a journal, the buck should stop at the editor, specifically Prof. Jeng at Dundee in this case.
Incidentally, they have a bit of a huge list for their advisory board. Not tried counting them, but there's about an order of magnitude more advisers than there are papers actually published. Something isn't right about that...
Incidentally, they have a bit of a huge list for their advisory board. Not tried counting them, but there's about an order of magnitude more advisers than there are papers actually published. Something isn't right about that...
The legitimacy of the editorial board members does nothing to convince me this journal is legit. From what I have read, Bentham spammed out requests for them, offering, IIRC, a discount on the journal. As well, many of the "members" may have attached there names to plum up their own resumes.
No the proof is in the reply you received, and what reply you might receive from your latest query to them.
TAM
Last edited:
I still say that a simple and direct way to test the peer review credentials of this journal would be if one of you qualified engineer types were to submit a letter written in your best technichal jargon about the unexplored structural properties of gingerbread or the superior fire resistance potential of chocolate bars.
C'mon! It'd be $600 well spent and you know it...
C'mon! It'd be $600 well spent and you know it...
The saga continues...
No, it is not. There is a very real possibility that some people could lose tenure over something like this. The responsible way to deal with it is to bottle it as quickly and professionally as possible, and that is precisely what I am attempting to do.
===
Two replies last night, both of them from Mr. Alam. The first was a forwarded message from Dr. Steven Jones. As you can expect, he disagrees with my assessment. However, as I indicated above, this is an editorial matter, and there is absolutely no reason why a submitter should be responding or even weighing in on the issue. This is clear evidence of a broken peer review process.
The second reply, in Mr. Alam's own words, was a suggestion that I should instead be submitting my own paper in response. I have never before seen a scientific journal article whose abstract dealt with the editorial standards of the journal itself. Needless to say, this suggestion is unprofessional, and borderline insane.
Regardless of whether or not the paper ultimately gets retracted, we can now confidently state that the publishers are incompetent. This matter needs to be resolved independent of any concerns with Dr. Jones or his paper.
I have now informed the Editor in Chief, Dr. Dong-Sheng Jeng of the University of Dundee, of the situation. I remain hopeful that he was previously unaware of these problems and will take steps to rectify them. The alternative is most depressing.
No, it is not. There is a very real possibility that some people could lose tenure over something like this. The responsible way to deal with it is to bottle it as quickly and professionally as possible, and that is precisely what I am attempting to do.
===
Two replies last night, both of them from Mr. Alam. The first was a forwarded message from Dr. Steven Jones. As you can expect, he disagrees with my assessment. However, as I indicated above, this is an editorial matter, and there is absolutely no reason why a submitter should be responding or even weighing in on the issue. This is clear evidence of a broken peer review process.
The second reply, in Mr. Alam's own words, was a suggestion that I should instead be submitting my own paper in response. I have never before seen a scientific journal article whose abstract dealt with the editorial standards of the journal itself. Needless to say, this suggestion is unprofessional, and borderline insane.
Regardless of whether or not the paper ultimately gets retracted, we can now confidently state that the publishers are incompetent. This matter needs to be resolved independent of any concerns with Dr. Jones or his paper.
I have now informed the Editor in Chief, Dr. Dong-Sheng Jeng of the University of Dundee, of the situation. I remain hopeful that he was previously unaware of these problems and will take steps to rectify them. The alternative is most depressing.
OK. Sorry, I guess I just don't take these things seriously enough. I wouldn't want anyone to lose their job over something like this.
Wasn't there an example recently of some people hoaxing a journal with a load of post-modern/post-structural nonsense that caused quite a stir in academe? Wish I could recall the details.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Wow. Talk about ludicrous.
Well, there you have it. Boloboffin nailed that one.
Indeed.
And that is being charitable.
You're probably thinking of the infamous Sokal Affair.
It is true that even the best journals screw up once in a while, and there have been several deliberate hoaxes that illustrate this. However, a good journal will make amends. So far, that is not happening here.
There's really no way to guarantee scientific accuracy without full replication of the result. I once took a biochemistry class where, every week, we were handed a selection of journal papers with instructions to analyze them critically, and debate them in discussion. Almost every one had fairly glaring problems. Most were vindicated by future results, but some were flat out wrong.
It happens. The whole reason one publishes is to come clean about one's findings, and seek verification from a broader community. Dr. Jones's paper is hardly transparent or useful, and that's why I oppose its publication.
I am also against hoaxes in almost every case. There are insufficient controls on a hoax, and it can come back to bite us later. Also, the only thing to be gained in this case is embarrassment of the publication itself. That appears inevitable at this point. I much prefer the constructive path, when available.
Confuseling
Irreligious fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,243
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen
also details a computer generated paper that someone got accepted at a conference, and is sometimes mentioned alongside Sokal.
I once heard of a psychology professor, back in the days when ethics committees were no more than the insane gleam in the eyes of a soothsayer, who claimed to have been visited by God, and tried to form a cult out of his students, as an experiment.
He came clean eventually, but some of the students refused to believe his disavowal. They thought he was just testing their faith, and reports have it that the group still persists to this day - or at least did for a very long time after the event.
I have no idea whether the story is true. I'd like it to be, but irrespective, it illustrates nicely I think why hoaxes need to be kept in check.
also details a computer generated paper that someone got accepted at a conference, and is sometimes mentioned alongside Sokal.
I once heard of a psychology professor, back in the days when ethics committees were no more than the insane gleam in the eyes of a soothsayer, who claimed to have been visited by God, and tried to form a cult out of his students, as an experiment.
He came clean eventually, but some of the students refused to believe his disavowal. They thought he was just testing their faith, and reports have it that the group still persists to this day - or at least did for a very long time after the event.
I have no idea whether the story is true. I'd like it to be, but irrespective, it illustrates nicely I think why hoaxes need to be kept in check.