The Science Friday article is not about bad science, it's about corruption of our publication system.  Those of us who regularly publish in peer-reviewed journals know which journals continue to represent the way good research is done...they use at least two qualified reviewers per paper, with accept/modify/reject outcomes as necessary to weed out careless, poor, or incomplete work.


Unfortunately, the general public often doesn't discriminate between science "vanity press" journals (thousands of them) full of poor and/or bogus papers, and the real thing.  I regularly get requests to be an editor or reviewer for these low-quality publications.  The first time I agreed to participate (thinking I could help, it's all volunteer work!) I discovered that their idea of peer review was a complete joke.  I was not even given a way to provide the authors with feedback!


If you want to know whether a journal is up to the standard we require in science, there are a couple of quick things you can do.  First, look to see how long the journal has been in publication.  Journals older than 20 years are probably OK.  The predatory publication problem is new, not old.  Second, check a couple of university libraries to see if they own a subscription.  Universities don't usually waste their money on predatory journals.

Christina

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html