There's an ever-growing grey zone between clearly predatory and legit publishers/ journals. The still exploding number of MDPI journals belong to the shady bunch. Why else would they ask a science drop-out to join the editorial board of Life – the life science journal?
May the bridges I burned today light the way to those I'll burn tomorrow – A blog for lost scientists and curious non-scientists.
Labels
#FightTheFog
(19)
ancestors
(3)
animals
(3)
artwork
(9)
Austria
(2)
bad science
(11)
Beall's legacy
(7)
bias
(4)
biogeography
(5)
branch support
(4)
Bundestagswahl
(9)
comment
(19)
curiosities
(2)
data links
(3)
European
(10)
evolution
(1)
France
(9)
free science
(5)
funny things
(3)
Germany
(12)
how-to-analyse
(10)
in Deutsch
(32)
infographics
(35)
introduction
(1)
Ireland
(1)
Köppen-Geiger
(3)
Landtagswahlen
(10)
languages
(5)
lost science
(3)
not science
(8)
oddities
(14)
open access
(1)
open data
(3)
palaeontology
(13)
peer review
(10)
people
(1)
Philosophisches
(8)
phylo-networks
(16)
plants
(23)
politics
(34)
pollen
(4)
public interest
(21)
satire
(10)
scam
(5)
science-related
(21)
Sweden
(4)
systematics
(3)
terminology
(5)
tips
(27)
travelling
(2)
USA
(18)
Wahl-O-Mat
(12)
Translate
Showing posts with label Beall's legacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beall's legacy. Show all posts
Pushy is the new predatory when it comes to scientific publishing
I have to admire how the full, semi- or quasi-predatory publishers never run out of new ideas to lure the needing (stuck in the single-blind peer review), unwitting (younglings who don't know better) or cheating (pseudo-scientists and those on the payroll of e.g. the pharmaceutical or medicinal industry) to their allegedly scientific and peer-reviewed publication platforms.
Spam, spam, spam, spam – is it time for an autobiography?
Another treasure, an offer one can not possibly reject, found in my junk folder. The "Oasis Publishing Group" wants to cherish my "outstanding contribution to the scientific community" with an autobiography.
Bentham wants me as reviewer ... for medicinal chemistry
BSP pretends to be a proper scientific publisher, and not a predatory
one. So, why sending an invitation to become a reviewer of some
medicinal journal to a former scientist (see counter on my homepage)
that dealt in phylogenetics and palaeobotany?
Age of angiosperms, may palaeobotany rest in peace (and pieces)
How old are the angiosperms? Very trivial to answer, more or less as old as all the other main lineages of living seed plants. Unless you define them in a particular way. And because you are who you are, no-one dares to criticise it. But thanks to predatory publishers, someone did. A tale about ivory towers, opinions presented as facts, the Impermeable Fog shrouding the Forest of Reviews, and the creeping death of palaeobotany. Although it could been the spark to ignite something beautiful.
The growing Grey Zone of scientific publishing
With the open access market booming and the scientific community clinging to shady (“confidential”) peer review, it becomes harder and harder to distinguish between honest and predatory publishers. Grey is the new fashion-colour.
Another Don Quixote gone: Beall’s List of Predatory Journals
Open access publishing is an exploding market, and, hence, has attracted many predators trying to make a quick buck selling the corpse of scientific credibility. But there was one riding against them, but no more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)