News from the open access movementJump to navigation
Bob Grant, Elsevier published 6 fake journals, The Scientist, May 7, 2009.
Bill Hooker, More on the "Australasian Journal of..." series., Open Reading Frame, May 9, 2009.
On the basis of the evidence below, I believe the entire "Australasian journal of..." series from Excerpta Medica to be either nonexistent or fake, in the same sense of "fake" that Elsevier has already admitted applies to the [above] six titles from that series ...When is peer review not peer view? (hint: when Merck pays Elsevier), Small Gray Matters, May 8, 2009.
... The bitter irony is that Elsevier, along with the other major academic publishers, have spent the last few years ceaselessly lobbying against the open access movement, on the grounds that open access journals can’t be trusted to maintain the high quality of peer review that the commercial publishers provide. Any guesses as to whether Elsevier will rethink that stance following this fiasco? ...Ben Goldacre, The danger of drugs … and data, The Guardian, May 9, 2009.
... Health systems pay for these drugs – state-funded in almost every single developed country – and they largely pay for the journals, too. In a sensible world, countries would band together and pay for comparative research themselves, and the free, open distribution of the results, to prevent all this nonsense. ...Peter Murray-Rust, Trust in scientific publishing, A Scientist and the Web , May 9, 2009.
Jonathan Eisen, Elsevier, fake medical journals, and yet another reason for #openaccess, The Tree of Life, May 8, 2009.
... [W]e can cross of the list of criticisms of Open Access publishing that the costly non open access journals and publishers are protecting the world from bad science. Instead, it seems like they are in fact explicitly and purposefully pushing bad science and medicine in order to make extra money. ...David Prosser, posting on liblicense-l, May 8, 2009.
Irony lovers will enjoy going back to 2004 and re-reading the evidence Crispin Davis, former CEO of Reed Elsevier, gave to the UK House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology. Right in the middle of this interesting practice Sir Crispin was commenting on the quality and objectivity safeguards of the subscription models - safeguards that would be undermined by open access. He also mentioned that 25% of Elsevier revenue came form the commercial sector, including Merck [question 65]. We now know how that came about. ...