{"id":37568,"date":"2017-01-20T11:16:44","date_gmt":"2017-01-20T19:16:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/world.edu\/?p=37568"},"modified":"2017-01-20T11:16:44","modified_gmt":"2017-01-20T19:16:44","slug":"will-keep-predatory-science-journals-bay-now-jeffrey-bealls-blog-gone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/will-keep-predatory-science-journals-bay-now-jeffrey-bealls-blog-gone\/","title":{"rendered":"Who will keep predatory science journals at bay now that Jeffrey Beall\u2019s blog is gone?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"SCIENTIFIC-JOURNALS\"<\/a><\/p>\n

For aficionados of bad science, the blog<\/a> of University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall<\/a> was essential reading. Beall\u2019s blog charted the murky world of predatory and vanity academic publishers, many of which charge excessive fees for publishing papers or have dysfunctional peer review processes.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve seen rubbish on chemtrails<\/a>, alien life<\/a>, climate<\/a>, HIV-AIDS<\/a> and vaccines<\/a> appear in these (unintended) parodies of academic publications. Although, to be honest, they can be a guilty pleasure of sorts. Perhaps I\u2019m like a film buff getting a kick out of Ed Wood\u2019s \u201cPlan 9 from Outer space<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n

But recently all of the content on Beall\u2019s blog was wiped without any warning<\/a>. While much of Beall\u2019s blog is archived<\/a>, it had been charting the evolution of predatory academic publishing, including conferences and the purchasing of existing journals. With Beall\u2019s blog gone, it will become harder to keep track of the underbelly of academic publishing.<\/p>\n

Changing face of scientific publishing<\/strong><\/p>\n

Traditionally, academic journals have been sustained via subscriptions, particularly those charged to academic libraries. Libraries would pick and choose which journals to subscribe to, in large part based on the requests of academics.<\/p>\n

Subscriptions provided some incentive to maintain quality but also limited the readership of academic papers, effectively excluding the broader pubic (whose taxes often funded the research).<\/p>\n

As the internet enabled the easy sharing of information, this is now extending to academic publications too. The \u201copen access<\/a>\u201d model is increasingly popular, where authors are charged publication fees and the resulting papers are freely available online.<\/p>\n

In principle, I like open access, as I believe science should be disseminated to the broadest audience possible. But there are perverse incentives. Will a publisher reject a manuscript that is manifestly rubbish, and forego the fees it would charge the author? In some cases the answer is \u201cno\u201d.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the shift from printed journals to online publications has facilitated predatory and vanity academic publishers. Computers and websites have replaced printing presses and bound volumes. One publisher on Beall\u2019s list, Zant World Press, is run from a Melbourne suburban house<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>

An archive of Beall\u2019s site maintains the most recent list of suspect journals.<\/p><\/div>
\nBeall\u2019s blog charted the explosion of predatory publishers exploiting the open access model. His list grew from just 18 publishers in 2011 to 1,155 publishers in 2017<\/a>!<\/p>\n

I, along with many others, found Beall\u2019s list an incredibly useful resource. Suspicious scientific claims could often be traced back to journals associated with publishers on the list.<\/p>\n

For example, in 2015 many newspapers printed claims that chocolate helped weight loss, but it was all a hoax<\/a>, which included publishing a paper in the International Archives of Medicine<\/a>, which was on Beall\u2019s list<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I recently became aware of another prank, played at the expense of a predatory publisher. Astronomer Dominique Eckert<\/a> submitted the joke paper \u201cGet me off Your Fucking Mailing List\u201d to IOSR journals<\/a>. The paper consists of \u201cget me off your fucking mailing list<\/a>\u201d repeated hundreds of times.<\/p>\n

While one cannot fault the paper for clarity of expression, it isn\u2019t suitable for an academic journal. But less than a week after Eckert submitted the paper, it was accepted for publication. The \u201creviewers comments\u201d were \u201cquality of manuscript is good\u201d. Manuscript handling charges were US$75 (A$100).<\/p>\n

Remarkably, this isn\u2019t the first time a predatory publisher has accepted \u201cGet me off Your Fucking Mailing List\u201d. Peter Vamplew<\/a> played the same prank in 2014.<\/p>\n

Beall planned a post on Eckert\u2019s prank for Thursday January 12, 2017, but it never happened. By then, all the content was wiped from the blog.<\/p>\n

Why this happened isn\u2019t yet clear. The University of Colorado says it was Beall\u2019s personal decision<\/a>. However, Lacey Earle<\/a>, who has been working with Beall, tweeted that Beall \u201cwas forced to shut down blog due to threats and politics\u201d.<\/p>\n