Conversation

Notices

1. Jorge Saturno :oa: (jorge@scholar.social)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Jan-2019 16:17:26 UTC Jorge Saturno :oa:

   Talk about #PredatoryJournals and fake conferences in #academia

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnKaGjGaUQk

   • Jorge Saturno :oa: (jorge@scholar.social)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Jan-2019 16:18:13 UTC Jorge Saturno :oa:

     in reply to

     I don't understand how an established professor can fail to identify such fake invitations to publish or attend a conference.

   • Victor Venema (victorvenema@bonn.social)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Jan-2019 16:35:58 UTC Victor Venema

     in reply to

     @jorge I was also shocked seeing that. That reporting was not fully fair. Most people using such services are on the edge of science a series of blog posts analysing these journals showed.

     The established researchers on the list are often co-authors, who wrongly trusted the first author. Fake journals ask enormous fees for people finding out where they published and wanting their names removed.

     Jorge Saturno :oa: repeated this.
   • bookandswordblog@scholar.social's status on Tuesday, 15-Jan-2019 16:48:06 UTC bookandswordblog

     in reply to

     @jorge and I would sure hope that anyone with a PhD understands that just because some journal somewhere accepted a paper does not mean that it is a sound argument according to the rules of the reader's discipline! There are whole fields where 'publishing' consists of uploading a paper onto a preprint server and the world has not come to an end.

     Jorge Saturno :oa: repeated this.
   • bookandswordblog@scholar.social's status on Tuesday, 15-Jan-2019 17:03:51 UTC bookandswordblog

     in reply to

     @jorge Some people seem to want peer review to define what is and is not scientific, but reviewers are fallible, distracted human beings and human beings disagree about what is good science.

     Jorge Saturno :oa: repeated this.