Junk science publisher ordered to stop ‘deceptive practices’

[Guest 3]

U.S. court orders ‘predatory publisher’ to remove misinformation from website. Canadian scientists ask ‘who will protect us?’.

A U.S. federal court has ordered an Indian company accused of publishing junk science for profit to stop “deceptive practices” that lead the public to believe its online journals contain legitimate research.

Read the rest of the article here.

 

[Valentijn]

Interesting that it isn't about the quality, review process, etc, but rather about deceptive practices in getting researchers to submit articles:

The FTC’s lawsuit doesn’t hinge on bad science, but on consumer protection. It zeroes in on an aspect of OMICS’s business that led to allegations it is a “predatory publisher” that fools young researchers into submitting their work under the impression that it will be published without charge.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that OMICS does not reveal “significant publishing fees” that authors must pay before their work is published.

After a paper is submitted, OMICS’s journals “often do not allow authors to withdraw their articles from submission, making their research ineligible for publication in other journals,” according to a statement put out by the FTC after the injunction was granted.

Their defense is "fake news"

 

[Alvin]

Interesting that it isn't about the quality, review process, etc, but rather about deceptive practices in getting researchers to submit articles:


Their defense is "fake news"

Indeed, they learn from the best (or should i say worst)

 

[Woolie]

Apparently, lots of these predatory journals have clever tricks to make them look "legit". For example, including superfluous citations of their own journals' article - to make the impact factor (journal citation rates) look bigger.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

As far as I can see this is a bit of humbug. All this started with the mainstream journals doing much the same. I remember being hit for unexpected page charges by the premier rheumatology journal twenty years ago. There are no good guys in this business. The academic community only has itself to blame.

 

[Esther12]

Apparently, lots of these predatory journals have clever tricks to make them look "legit". For example, including superfluous citations of their own journals' article - to make the impact factor (journal citation rates) look bigger.

Someone else pointed out a few years ago that a lot of articles in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research seemed to have superfluous references of work by the journal's editor.