Tag Archives: scientific publishing

Analysis of publication impact in predatory-journal – Nature

Posted on by
Reply

In case you’ve missed this one, an interesting analysis was recently published in Nature on citations of manuscripts published in predatory journal. If you contrast with a previous post of mine (here), when considering all journals about 24% of publications get 10 or more citations. This falls dramatically for predatory journal. More importantly no paper get over 32 citations in those journals while 1.8% of all published manuscripts get over 100 citations in general.

 

Source: Predatory-journal papers have little scientific impact

Étudiant et auteur: pourquoi, quand et comment!

Posted on by
Reply

A rare post in French on a conference I gave last year on the status of author taken by students, mainly in the context of sciences and engineering (my field) but pointers given are quite general.

Le titre de cet article est celui d’une présentation que j’ai donnée l’an dernier dans le cadre de la Semaine sur la conduite responsable en recherche 2019 organisée par l’Université Laval.

Cette présentation vient d’être mis en ligne et est disponible ici: https://youtu.be/7MEplFlwW30!

 

 

 

Systematically reject requests to review: a shameful behaviour?

Posted on by
Reply

I love science. I hate supposition, superstition, exaggeration and falsified data. Show me the research, show me the results, show me the conclusions – and then show me some qualified peer reviews of all that.
– Bill Vaughan

Every time you publish in a peer-reviewed journal, you mobilize anywhere from 3 to 5 persons who will work absolutely for free on your manuscript. Minimally, you will have two reviewers and an associate editor, all who will take the time to read and critics your work. On the top of that, the editor will also spend times on it. If needed, a third reviewer will also be requested. 

Continue reading →

The reviewers are always right…even when they are wrong!-

Posted on by
3

Science has a culture that is inherently cautious and that is normally not a bad thing. You could even say conservative, because of the peer review process and because the scientific method prizes uncertainty and penalises anyone who goes out on any sort of a limb that is not held in place by abundant and well-documented evidence.
– Al Gore

One important aspect of scientific research is dissemination of the results through peer-reviewed publications. In a previous post, I discussed the choice of venue and the relative (un)importance of the journal impact factor. In this post, I address what happen in-between that first submission and the actual publication.

Continue reading →

Some public shaming is in order

Posted on by
4

I do not know about you, but I am getting tired and even a bit frustrated by all the e-mails asking me to come to meeting X, publish my papers in journal Y, or even worse like the one below about being a member of editorial or advisor board of a journal Z. The problem is most of these are not even closely connected to your field of expertise; they are simply fishing and a very simply Google Scholar and PubMed search would reveal that in a matter of seconds. This basically means that these requests are coming from ill-intended individuals and companies that have no sense of ethics what-so-ever. Their meetings and journals should be considered predatory at best. Thus, public shaming is in order. The latest in this category is below with my comments.

Continue reading →

A new list of predatory (blacklist) journals is available…for a fee

Posted on by
Reply

Beall’s list of predatory journals has found a “commercial” replacement. Let’s see how much it will cost to access.

Source: U.S. company launches a new blacklist of deceptive academic journals | University Affairs