Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Indo-Eurasia] Science's "Sokal moment"

Expand Messages
  • Steve Farmer
    Sidelight (maybe not so much on the side) on your black-humor overview of the Science article, Richard. That article is explicitly billed by Science part of
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 5 11:18 AM
      Sidelight (maybe not so much on the side) on your black-humor overview of the Science article, Richard.

      That article is explicitly billed by Science part of "an elaborate Science sting," supposedly "raising questions about peer-review practices in much of the open-access world." 

      The self-serving attack on Open Access initiated by a journal that publishes nothing Open Access, which is ironically labeled "Who Is Afraid of Peer Review," was clearly not itself peer reviewed. 

      If it had been, any reviewer would have pointed out all the questions that have repeatedly been raised in recent years about Science's peer review policies.

      The science world is certainly getting nutty. The reason that Science doesn't publish Open Access articles has to do entirely with advertising dollars, and nothing to do whatsoever with science. Not a single suggestion of any of these issues in this "special issue," of course.

      Steve
       
      On Oct 5, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Richard Sproat <rws@...> wrote:

       

      A few days ago Steve pointed me to the most recent table of contents (articles not open access of course) of Science Magazine, in which they gloatingly reported on their "Sokal" experiment with a bunch of Open Access Journals.

      Now the most recent issue of The Economist has picked up on this:


      (Well of course they picked up on it: this came from SCIENCE after all.)

      An amusing experiment, and certainly one that shows up the perils of the Open Access model, where journals may be altogether too willing to publish --- for a fee.

      But has Science Mag not heard the old adage about those who live in glass houses not throwing stones? Or as my mother would have put it, the pot calling the kettle black?

      Have they forgotten that they have published scores of papers that have been shown to be fraud (Hendrik Schön, Diederik Stapel)? Or semifraudulent (Rao et al 2009)? Or papers that could be debunked in a matter of hours on the Language Log (Atkinson 2011)?  All of which of course got past their brilliant review process. (Or maybe did NOT get by the review process, but were picked for publication anyway for publicity reasons.)

      There is no parody like an apparently unintentional self-parody.

      Happy weekend.

      Richard


    • Richard Sproat
      Addendum: the Language Log, of course, picked up on this too. See here http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=7584
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 7 5:01 AM
        Addendum: the Language Log, of course, picked up on this too. See here



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.