Author: Shane O'Mara
Neuroscientist View all posts by Shane O'Mara
Blame bad science on profit-making journals
Top Posts & Pages
- Books and Writing
- Why We Need to Walk — Now More Than Ever
- WHAT I DO
- In Praise of Walking - My new book
- Why Walking Matters—Now More Than Ever (essay in the Wall St Journal)
- Hellraiser, sadomasochism, distributed and dismembered consciousness, and the brain's experience of pain
- Urban Walking is the best...!
- Robert MacFarlane's 'Underworld' - a very short review of a remarkable and astonishing book
- The Importance of Daily Rituals
- Electroconvulsive shock and transcranial stimulation as torture methods in George Orwell's 1984
Blogs I Follow
- ukcivilservant
- muircheartblog.wordpress.com/
- BEERG Brexit Blog
- O'Mara Lab
- Fardels Bear
- Walkable Streets
- Slate Star Codex
- INSIDE OUT
- Bits of DNA
- Approaching Significance
- Behavioural Public Policy Blog
- Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
- disorderedworld
- Intel Today
- basic statistics
- Replicability-Index
- Meteuphoric
- The Hardest Science
- Biz Psycho
- Rupert Stone
Blogroll
- Aeon
- Arts and Letters Daily
- BishopBlog
- BrainFacts.Org
- Cultural Cognition
- Data Colada
- Discuss
- Flip Chart Fairy Tales
- Flowing Data
- Minds for Business
- Nautilus
- Neuroscience Ireland
- Neuroskeptic
- Ninth Level Ireland
- Normblog
- Occam’s Typewriter
- PLoS Blogs
- Psychological Statistics
- Research Blogs
- Science of Us
- Science-Based Medicine
- Simply Statistics
- Statistics for Experimental Biologists
- Stumbling and Mumbling
- The Browser – writing worth reading
- The Neurocritic
- The Serial Mentor
- The Unlimited Mind
- Theme Showcase
- University Ranking Watch
- Wiring The Brain
- WordPress.com News
- [citation needed]
Really? I must say that I cannot agree that open access journals provide a safeguard against the sorts of problems outlined here and attributed to subscription journals. In my experience, some quite prominent open access journals seem to have exceptionally light refereeing and are willing to publish the most scanty of ‘reviews’ – many essentially opinion pieces – as if they were proper scientific papers. I am not talking about PLOS ONE here, where the refereeing in my experience is reasonably comparable with that in many subscription journals, but there are others where it seems that you simply have to pay over your 1.5 thousand dollars, and hey-presto, you have a publication. Strangely enough, in spite of this apparent policy, some of these journals seem to manage to get reasonably high impact. But I do very much worry about the quality of refereeing for the empirical papers in these journals and in my experience, this is more of a problem in the open-access ones, than in the good subscription ones.