Romanian Science Journal Punked By Serbian Academics 95
schwit1 writes "A group of Serbian academics, disgusted with the poor state of their country's research output, have scammed a Romanian science journal by getting it to accept their completely fabricated hoax article. From the article: 'The paper is replete with transparent gimmicks — obvious, that is, had anyone at the publication been paying attention — including a reference to the scholarship of [singer Michael] Jackson, Weber, [porn star Ron] Jeremy and citations to new studies by Bernoulli and Laplace, both dead more than 180 years (Weber died in 1920). They also throw in references to the "Journal of Modern Illogical Studies," which to the best of our knowledge does not and never has existed (although perhaps it should), and to a researcher named, dubiously, "A.S. Hole." And, we hasten to add, the noted Kazakh polymath B. Sagdiyev, otherwise known as Borat.' Their paper is hilarious and completely ridiculous, and yet it was published in a so-called serious journal without question. The best part is that they list Alan Sokal's hoax paper from 1996 as one of their sources."
Where to start (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
The state of current science publishing is rather appalling in general. I review for various conferences and journals in CS (not bad ones), and I can tell you that papers are often accepted based on author names and affiliations, and not on their contents. I can imagine that in a marginal journal in a small country the standards are even lower.
Error! Reference source not found. (Score:1, Insightful)
Is this real? (Metallurgia International's web site appears to be gone, so there's no direct proof).
Surely even the worst kind of journal would ask that the Error! Reference source not found broken cross-references be fixed?
Re:poor article summary: reason in the In Serbia m (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Disgusted with the poor state of Serbia's research output, I will now also scam a Romanian science journal.
Sounds like a cunning plan.
Yes, now Serbia can be proud of not publishing such rubbish. If you can't do well yourself make sure someone else does worse
The entire point of this stunt obviously fell 20 feet short in your mind(s). I suppose you all fail to see the larger issue here with them being able to get away with this, as I now have to question every process to publish a paper in every country, as I'm willing to bet most review processes are just as pathetic. In fact, I'd love someone to pay this group to exercise this test on a global scale just to prove how much "published" papers have a hell of a lot more to do with revenue than they do results.
In that way, this reminds me of Amazon product reviews. The difference is we're not using Amazon reviews to create laws and legalize products.
Re:Great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
I've just had a paper accepted in a journal, and the multiple reviews it went through distinctly improved the quality of the paper. The idea remained the same, but my explanation could have been better, and multiple emails with the reviewer discussing if it was correct helped me improve and refine it. *Maybe* I would have gotten that from an open access database as well, but the added value of a reputable journal is that they can't get away with publishing poor and sloppy work.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had any mod points to give, I'd mod the parent up.
The GP states,
There should not be a place "scientific" journals in modern science. They have no added value whatsoever and in fact harm free sharing of knowledge and information.
Anybody who makes that claim has no real grasp of how science works. Science journals have come under fire for a variety of reasons in recent years, but the peer review process that is central to scientific publishing is why journals are so important. And I am using "journal" in the broadest sense to include open-access, online-only publications. As long as they include quality peer review, they are science journals.
As others have pointed out, the process of taking a paper through peer review often leads to substantial improvements to the original manuscript or reveals shortcomings that must be addressed before the work can be published. And, most of the time, it keeps the really bad work from ever being published at all. Is the process perfect? Of course not. But an anecdotal case of spectacular failure by an obscure mettalurgy journal does not mean the whole concept is worthless. It merely means that journal is bad. The peer-review process is the best method we have for ensuring the quality of scientific work, and without it (and the journals that provide the structure for it), scientific progress would be greatly hindered. Until we come up with a better way to filter the good from the bad, journals will remain an essential part of science.