Fake science publisher accepts (again) a paper already exposed as ‘pile of dung’

[C C]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...le-of-dung

EXCERPT: In the three years since the Citizen started covering fake science publishers, the constant question has always been: How bad can they get? This week, the Indian company OMICS set a new low. It published meaningless garbage submitted as a test by the Citizen last fall, then got exposed for it, but has now accepted the same garbage all over again. Verbatim. It will help us present the meaningless work as valuable research — if we pay them $1,499 U.S. In advance, please.

This shows OMICS is skipping the most crucial part of academic publishing — doing a quality check on material it publishes, called peer review. In fact, given that our garbled text doesn’t say anything, the Indian company probably doesn’t read what it publishes at all. Here’s how it happened.

Predatory” science publishers are companies that pretend to publish new research from scientists. In reality, these journals will put anything online for a hefty fee. This allows substandard academics who can’t get their work into legitimate journals to buy black-market credentials....

MORE: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...le-of-dung

[Magical Realist]

We plagiarized about 1,200 words from Aristotle (384-322 BC), added some nonsense words so that it became meaningless, and submitted this as an article.

Did they even read it? That's hilarious!

[Syne]

This hoax, however, was rooted in moral and political biases masquerading as rigorous academic theory. Working in a biased environment, we successfully sugarcoated utter nonsense with a combination of fashionable moral sentiments and impenetrable jargon. Cogent Social Sciences happily swallowed the pill. It left utter nonsense easy to disguise.

The publish-or-perish academic environment is its own poison that needs a remedy. It gives rise to predatory profit-driven journals with few or no academic standards that take advantage of legitimate scholars pressured into publishing their work at all costs, even if it is marginal or dubious. Many of these scholars are victims both of a system that is forcing them to publish more papers and to publish them more often, to the detriment of research quality, and of the predatory journals that offer to sell them the illusion of academic prestige. Certainly, we have every reason to suspect that a majority of the other academics who have published in Cogent Social Sciences and other journals in the Cogent Series are genuine scholars who have been cheated by what may be a weak peer-review process with a highly polished edifice. Our question about the fundamental integrity of fields like gender studies seems much more pressing nonetheless.

“The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” should not have been published on its merits because it was actively written to avoid having any merits whatsoever. The paper is academically worthless nonsense. The question that now needs to be answered is, “How can we restore the reliability of the peer-review process?”
- http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conc...r-studies/