On this site, we constantly admonish against treating journal articles as if they are the stone tablets brought down from Mount Horeb.
And now science journalist John Bohannon drives that point home with an elaborate spoof.
He sent out a research paper he dreamed up and got at least 157 journals to accept it.
It’s a wonderful tale, well-documented on the Science website.
It appears in Science’s Special Issue on Communication in Science: Pressures and Predators – “on the lack of scrutiny at open-access journals, the rarity of published negative studies, and publishing sensitive data.”
But the Retraction Watch blog noted an important caveat about the story’s emphasis on open access journals.
“…it’s important to note, given the heated and endless debates between open access advocates and traditional publishers, that there was no control group. Bohannon agreed that was a limitation when we asked whether he had considered, as one of his sources suggested, the same spoof with traditional publishers:
“I did consider it. That was part of my original (very over-ambitious) plan. But the turnaround time for traditional journals is usually months and sometimes more than a year. How could I ever pull off a representative sample? Instead, this just focused on open access journals and makes no claim about the comparative quality of open access vs. traditional subscription journals.”
Addendum on October 5: The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association has posted its response. You might find the reader comments interesting as well.
Another addendum on October 7: Gunther Eysenbach wrote, “Unscientific spoof paper accepted by 157 “black sheep” open access journals – but the Bohannon study has severe flaws itself.”
Another addendum on October 8: The Neurobonkers blog wrote, “Science’s Straw Man Sting.”
———————–
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
and on Facebook.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like