clip_image001Interesting article, Open-access science journals affect credibility in The Columbus Dispatch by Steve Rissing, a biology professor at Ohio State University. I know we have discussed this before, but Rissing offeres some additional perspectives:

This process of peer review lies at the heart of scientific communication. Done with care, it assures a high standard of objectivity and clarity in research accepted for publication or presentation. Done poorly, it can mislead others, especially members of the public who read the publications directly or through the press.

Most biologists who edit a journal or serve on its board usually do so for no more than one or two journals at a time. One of the new journals that sent a recent “Dear Researcher”invitation to submit a paper has an editor-in-chief who works   for 52 journals, according to an online index service. Those journals cover not only biology but also economics, medical practice and food science.

A recent New York Times front-page story focused on the hidden costs of these new scientific conferences and online journals. The article focused on the plight of unsuspecting conference attendees and authors. They were stuck with undisclosed and exorbitant conference fees and publication costs.

They are hardly the only ones led astray by these practices.

The politicization of science and the rise of science denial have already made it difficult to get a clear understanding of the state of much scientific research. The rise of for-profit journal mills that create hundreds of new publications with few if any standards can only   confuse this situation.

Hat tip: Joe Marino