I've just been invited to join the editorial board, and also to submit a
paper, to the journal "Engineering Science". That's not a journal that I
recall being in my area of specialty. The invitation says "Since your
pսblіshed аrtіcle "Consistently Negative Ϝееdback" has been widely
recognized, [...]".

To that I call bullshit. The article in question is a minor research
paper that I self-published without bothering to submit it to a research
journal. According to ResearchGate it has been read by 77 people and it
has no citations. I believe that it's a valid contribution to the field,
with some valuable insights, but I'm not expecting citations or wide
recognition.

Over the last decade or more there's been a rash of new research
journals, and I used to wonder why. Research journals get part of their
income by being subsidised by professional societies, and most by
selling subscriptions to libraries. But libraries have limited budgets,
and are unlikely to subscribe to something seen as second-rate.

Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is quite
shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the authors. In
a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are willing to pay up in
order to get their name in print. One of the attractions, it seems, is
fast turnaround by reviewers who don't bother to check for errors. At
typical article on the subject is
http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/

Another problem, apparently, is that they provide a platform for junk
science, allowing people to publish "facts" that are not supported by
genuine research. How long until we get to see an International Journal
of Fake News?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 28/04/2024 07:07, Peter Moylan wrote:
> I've just been invited to join the editorial board, and also to submit a
> paper, to the journal "Engineering Science". That's not a journal that I
> recall being in my area of specialty. The invitation says "Since your
> pսblіshed аrtіcle "Consistently Negative Ϝееdback" has been widely
> recognized, [...]".
>
> To that I call bullshit. The article in question is a minor research
> paper that I self-published without bothering to submit it to a research
> journal. According to ResearchGate it has been read by 77 people and it
> has no citations. I believe that it's a valid contribution to the field,
> with some valuable insights, but I'm not expecting citations or wide
> recognition.
>
> Over the last decade or more there's been a rash of new research
> journals, and I used to wonder why. Research journals get part of their
> income by being subsidised by professional societies, and most by
> selling subscriptions to libraries. But libraries have limited budgets,
> and are unlikely to subscribe to something seen as second-rate.
>
> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is quite
> shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the authors. In
> a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are willing to pay up in
> order to get their name in print. One of the attractions, it seems, is
> fast turnaround by reviewers who don't bother to check for errors. At
> typical article on the subject is
>     http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/
>
> Another problem, apparently, is that they provide a platform for junk
> science, allowing people to publish "facts" that are not supported by
> genuine research. How long until we get to see an International Journal
> of Fake News?
>

That, of course reminded me of the paper by Mazières and Kohler:

<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rachelzarrell/a-paper-called-get-me-off-your-fcking-mailing-list-was-accep>

--
Phil B

On 28/04/2024 08:07, Peter Moylan wrote:
> I've just been invited to join the editorial board, and also to submit a
> paper, to the journal "Engineering Science". That's not a journal that I
> recall being in my area of specialty. The invitation says "Since your
> pսblіshed аrtіcle "Consistently Negative Ϝееdback" has been widely
> recognized, [...]".
>
> To that I call bullshit. The article in question is a minor research
> paper that I self-published without bothering to submit it to a research
> journal. According to ResearchGate it has been read by 77 people and it
> has no citations. I believe that it's a valid contribution to the field,
> with some valuable insights, but I'm not expecting citations or wide
> recognition.
>
> Over the last decade or more there's been a rash of new research
> journals, and I used to wonder why. Research journals get part of their
> income by being subsidised by professional societies, and most by
> selling subscriptions to libraries. But libraries have limited budgets,
> and are unlikely to subscribe to something seen as second-rate.
>
> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is quite
> shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the authors. In
> a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are willing to pay up in
> order to get their name in print. One of the attractions, it seems, is
> fast turnaround by reviewers who don't bother to check for errors. At
> typical article on the subject is
>     http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/
>
> Another problem, apparently, is that they provide a platform for junk
> science, allowing people to publish "facts" that are not supported by
> genuine research. How long until we get to see an International Journal
> of Fake News?
>

Wot's 'Shonky'? Shockingly wonkey?

On 28/04/24 20:03, occam wrote:
> On 28/04/2024 08:07, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> Another problem, apparently, is that they provide a platform for junk
>> science, allowing people to publish "facts" that are not supported by
>> genuine research. How long until we get to see an International Journal
>> of Fake News?
>
> Wot's 'Shonky'? Shockingly wonkey?

Sorry, it hadn't occurred to me that it was regional.

▸ adjective: (Australia, New Zealand, UK, informal) Of poor or dubious
quality, shoddy, unreliable; deviously dishonest, fraudulent.

Terry Pratchett fans will of course remember another meaning, as in "a
packet of shonkys for the weekend". As I recall the plot, Mr Shonky was
murdered by drowning in his own rubber vat. There was also something
about making a fake Scone of Stone, to mess up the crowning of the Low King.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 2024-04-28 06:07:55 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> I've just been invited to join the editorial board, and also to submit a
> paper, to the journal "Engineering Science". That's not a journal that I
> recall being in my area of specialty. The invitation says "Since your
> pսblіshed аrtіcle "Consistently Negative Ϝееdback" has been widely
> recognized, [...]".

I get plenty of those, often from people who claim to have been very
impressed with some paper of mind, usually with no relation whatever to
the theme of the journal.
>
> To that I call bullshit. The article in question is a minor research
> paper that I self-published without bothering to submit it to a research
> journal. According to ResearchGate it has been read by 77 people and it
> has no citations. I believe that it's a valid contribution to the field,
> with some valuable insights, but I'm not expecting citations or wide
> recognition.
>
> Over the last decade or more there's been a rash of new research
> journals, and I used to wonder why. Research journals get part of their
> income by being subsidised by professional societies, and most by
> selling subscriptions to libraries. But libraries have limited budgets,
> and are unlikely to subscribe to something seen as second-rate.
>
> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is quite
> shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the authors. In
> a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are willing to pay up in
> order to get their name in print. One of the attractions, it seems, is
> fast turnaround by reviewers who don't bother to check for errors. At
> typical article on the subject is
> http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/

I had one last week that offered a special price of $599 for my
valuable contribution, to be sent before 15th May.
>
> Another problem, apparently, is that they provide a platform for junk
> science, allowing people to publish "facts" that are not supported by
> genuine research. How long until we get to see an International Journal
> of Fake News?

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 28/04/2024 10:15 p.m., Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 28/04/24 20:03, occam wrote:
>> On 28/04/2024 08:07, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>> Another problem, apparently, is that they provide a platform for junk
>>> science, allowing people to publish "facts" that are not supported by
>>> genuine research. How long until we get to see an International Journal
>>> of Fake News?
>>
>> Wot's 'Shonky'? Shockingly wonkey?
>
> Sorry, it hadn't occurred to me that it was regional.
>
> ▸ adjective: (Australia, New Zealand, UK, informal) Of poor or dubious
> quality, shoddy, unreliable; deviously dishonest, fraudulent.
>
> Terry Pratchett fans will of course remember another meaning, as in "a
> packet of shonkys for the weekend". As I recall the plot, Mr Shonky was
> murdered by drowning in his own rubber vat. There was also something
> about making a fake Scone of Stone, to mess up the crowning of the Low
> King.
>

I mentioned this word here a few years ago, when I found out that it
apparently originated from "shonk" an offensive (UK) term for a Jew.
I was pondering whether I should expunge it from my vocabulary, when I
heard our then Prime Minister, John Key (who is Jewish), use the word to
describe the opposition's economic policies. Since it's OK with Mr Key,
and since not one present day speaker in a thousand knows anything about
its etymology, I decided to return this useful word to my active lexicon
(although the etymology files remain restricted to mature and serious
persons).

Peter Moylan wrote:

> I've just been invited to join the editorial board, and also to submit a
> paper, to the journal "Engineering Science". That's not a journal that I
> recall being in my area of specialty. The invitation says "Since your
> pսblіshed аrtіcle "Consistently Negative Ϝееdback" has been widely
> recognized, [...]".

> To that I call bullshit. The article in question is a minor research
> paper that I self-published without bothering to submit it to a research
> journal. According to ResearchGate it has been read by 77 people and it
> has no citations. I believe that it's a valid contribution to the field,
> with some valuable insights, but I'm not expecting citations or wide
> recognition.

> Over the last decade or more there's been a rash of new research
> journals, and I used to wonder why. Research journals get part of their
> income by being subsidised by professional societies, and most by
> selling subscriptions to libraries. But libraries have limited budgets,
> and are unlikely to subscribe to something seen as second-rate.

> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is quite
> shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the authors. In
> a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are willing to pay up in
> order to get their name in print. One of the attractions, it seems, is
> fast turnaround by reviewers who don't bother to check for errors. At
> typical article on the subject is
> http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/

> Another problem, apparently, is that they provide a platform for junk
> science, allowing people to publish "facts" that are not supported by
> genuine research. How long until we get to see an International Journal
> of Fake News?

Why bother about journals if you are not an academic?

bt

On 28/04/24 19:43, Phil wrote:
> On 28/04/2024 07:07, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> I've just been invited to join the editorial board, and also to submit a
>> paper, to the journal "Engineering Science". That's not a journal that I
>> recall being in my area of specialty. The invitation says "Since your
>> pսblіshed аrtіcle "Consistently Negative Ϝееdback" has been widely
>> recognized, [...]".
>>
>> To that I call bullshit. The article in question is a minor research
>> paper that I self-published without bothering to submit it to a research
>> journal. According to ResearchGate it has been read by 77 people and it
>> has no citations. I believe that it's a valid contribution to the field,
>> with some valuable insights, but I'm not expecting citations or wide
>> recognition.
>>
>> Over the last decade or more there's been a rash of new research
>> journals, and I used to wonder why. Research journals get part of their
>> income by being subsidised by professional societies, and most by
>> selling subscriptions to libraries. But libraries have limited budgets,
>> and are unlikely to subscribe to something seen as second-rate.
>>
>> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is quite
>> shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the authors. In
>> a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are willing to pay up in
>> order to get their name in print. One of the attractions, it seems, is
>> fast turnaround by reviewers who don't bother to check for errors. At
>> typical article on the subject is
>> http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/
>>
>> Another problem, apparently, is that they provide a platform for junk
>> science, allowing people to publish "facts" that are not supported by
>> genuine research. How long until we get to see an International Journal
>> of Fake News?

> That, of course reminded me of the paper by Mazières and Kohler:
>
> <https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rachelzarrell/a-paper-called-get-me-off-your-fcking-mailing-list-was-accep>

I see that they wanted to charge the authors $150 before publication. I
gather that some of these operators publish the paper first, and then
pursue the authors for the payment. A lawyer could have a field day with
this one.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan wrote:

> I've just been invited to join the editorial board, and also to submit a
> paper, to the journal "Engineering Science". That's not a journal that I
> recall being in my area of specialty. The invitation says "Since your
> pսblіshed аrtіcle "Consistently Negative Ϝееdback" has been widely
> recognized, [...]".

> To that I call bullshit. The article in question is a minor research
> paper that I self-published without bothering to submit it to a research
> journal. According to ResearchGate it has been read by 77 people and it
> has no citations. I believe that it's a valid contribution to the field,
> with some valuable insights, but I'm not expecting citations or wide
> recognition.

> Over the last decade or more there's been a rash of new research
> journals, and I used to wonder why. Research journals get part of their
> income by being subsidised by professional societies, and most by
> selling subscriptions to libraries. But libraries have limited budgets,
> and are unlikely to subscribe to something seen as second-rate.

> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is quite
> shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the authors. In
> a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are willing to pay up in
> order to get their name in print. One of the attractions, it seems, is
> fast turnaround by reviewers who don't bother to check for errors. At
> typical article on the subject is
> http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/

"Page charges" have existed for longer than I've been alive.

https://books.google.com/books?id=SLoLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA10

Are you sure there weren't any in your field, paid by your university
or your grant?

A lot of academic publishing is a racket. Yes, somebody has to pay to
distribute research results, but these days the cost can be low, and I
don't see why anyone should get more than a minimal profit, if any.
Of course the spam journals you're talking about are the worst.

> Another problem, apparently, is that they provide a platform for junk
> science, allowing people to publish "facts" that are not supported by
> genuine research. How long until we get to see an International Journal
> of Fake News?

That too.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 29/04/24 01:01, jerryfriedman wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:

>> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is
>> quite shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the
>> authors. In a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are
>> willing to pay up in order to get their name in print. One of the
>> attractions, it seems, is fast turnaround by reviewers who don't
>> bother to check for errors. At typical article on the subject is
>> http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/
>
> "Page charges" have existed for longer than I've been alive.

True, but not in such a predatory way until the current millennium. The
good journals had, and still have, high reviewing standards.

> https://books.google.com/books?id=SLoLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA10

It's interesting to look at the table on that page, because there's a
big variation by field. In chemistry and in engineering there were no
journals in their sample that had page charges.

> Are you sure there weren't any in your field, paid by your university
> or your grant?

Definitely not. Australian research granting bodies would have struck
such a thing from the budget. The top journals in my field didn't have
page charges, so you'd only be paying page charges if your work was
rejected by the top journals. Reviewers of grant applications took note
of where your publications were, and in particular whether they were in
the most-respected journals or the second-rate ones.

I've seen the argument that publication costs are a legitimate part of
research, but it seemed to me that that argument was not accepted
outside North America. (Back then. I don't know about now.) The argument
makes sense, but at least in my country research grants tended to be
small, perhaps just enough to buy a personal computer.

Second-rate publications can be helpful to academics applying for
promotion. Typically the promotion application is assessed by people in
other disciplines, who are less able to judge the quality of publications.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

* Ross Clark <v0l91i$10fv3$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 28 Apr 2024 22:39:37 +1200:
> I mentioned this word here a few years ago, when I found out that it
> apparently originated from "shonk" an offensive (UK) term for a Jew.
> I was pondering whether I should expunge it from my vocabulary, when I
> heard our then Prime Minister, John Key (who is Jewish), use the word
> to describe the opposition's economic policies. Since it's OK with Mr
> Key, and since not one present day speaker in a thousand knows
> anything about its etymology, I decided to return this useful word to
> my active lexicon (although the etymology files remain restricted to
> mature and serious persons).

This reasoning is not sound. Just because Mr. Key uses it doesn't make
it OK for others to use it. The nword may be an example to the point.

* (jerryfriedman) <8fe90b8d21d469a35b57ba791329b2a2@www.novabbs.com> :
Wrote on Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:01:50 +0000:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is quite
>> shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the authors. In
>> a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are willing to pay up in
>> order to get their name in print. One of the attractions, it seems, is
>> fast turnaround by reviewers who don't bother to check for errors. At
>> typical article on the subject is
>
> "Page charges" have existed for longer than I've been alive.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=SLoLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA10
>
> Are you sure there weren't any in your field, paid by your university
> or your grant?
> A lot of academic publishing is a racket.

I'm not sure about this the business model seems to be the same and
sound. The assistant professor caught in the publish or perish racket
merely became a conduit for the laundering between the unviersity
entities and the publications entities. Now the difference is he has to
pay to get into the racket.

Like the defence budgets, the library budgets of universities [in India
at least ] were setup to deliver large sums of money abroad for
purchasing journals to the few key publishers. [Software licensing was
another area]

> Yes, somebody has to pay to
> distribute research results, but these days the cost can be low, and I
> don't see why anyone should get more than a minimal profit, if any.
> Of course the spam journals you're talking about are the worst.

On 29/04/2024 2:26 p.m., Madhu wrote:
> * Ross Clark <v0l91i$10fv3$1@dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Sun, 28 Apr 2024 22:39:37 +1200:
>> I mentioned this word here a few years ago, when I found out that it
>> apparently originated from "shonk" an offensive (UK) term for a Jew.
>> I was pondering whether I should expunge it from my vocabulary, when I
>> heard our then Prime Minister, John Key (who is Jewish), use the word
>> to describe the opposition's economic policies. Since it's OK with Mr
>> Key, and since not one present day speaker in a thousand knows
>> anything about its etymology, I decided to return this useful word to
>> my active lexicon (although the etymology files remain restricted to
>> mature and serious persons).
>
> This reasoning is not sound. Just because Mr. Key uses it doesn't make
> it OK for others to use it. The nword may be an example to the point.

The "nword" case involves members of a potentially offended group using
a word _among themselves_ which, if used by outsiders, would be
considered offensive. Mr Key was not using the word in an in-group
Jewish context, but in a completely public situation, speaking not as a
Jew, but as Prime Minister and member of the government of a secular
state, to refer to (the policies of) another secular political group.

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:07:55 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>Over the last decade or more there's been a rash of new research
>journals, and I used to wonder why. Research journals get part of their
>income by being subsidised by professional societies, and most by
>selling subscriptions to libraries. But libraries have limited budgets,
>and are unlikely to subscribe to something seen as second-rate.
>
>Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is quite
>shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the authors. In
>a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are willing to pay up in
>order to get their name in print. One of the attractions, it seems, is
>fast turnaround by reviewers who don't bother to check for errors. At
>typical article on the subject is
> http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/

Until about 20 years ago, in South Africa at least, most such journals
were published by learned societies, and the government Department of
Higher Education subsidised the authors by paying a subsidy to the
institution that employed them.

In the university where I worked, academic departments received the
subsidy for articles published in recognised journals by members of
their staff. It was up to each department to decide whether to give
part of that subsidy to the authors.

Knowing this, the editors of some journals started asking for a
subvention from authors for articles publlished. I discovered this
when I wrote an article that was published in a journal in a field
that was unrelated to the department I was working in at the time, and
after publishing it they asked me to pay, but as I wasn't aware of the
system, and slipped through the cracks in it; I neither knew about nor
expected the subsidy, nor could I pay what the journal asked for.

In the 1990s, as an academic follow-up to the neoliberalism of the
Reagan-Thatcher years, there was a move to commercialise or "monetise"
higher education, including journal publishing, and commercial outfits
bought up journals formerly published by learned societies and asked
authors to pay to be published, and readers to pay for access to them.

So academic journals have become an even bigger racket.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On 29/04/24 12:26, Madhu wrote:
> * Ross Clark <v0l91i$10fv3$1@dont-email.me> : Wrote on Sun, 28 Apr
> 2024 22:39:37 +1200:

>> I mentioned this word here a few years ago, when I found out that
>> it apparently originated from "shonk" an offensive (UK) term for a
>> Jew. I was pondering whether I should expunge it from my
>> vocabulary, when I heard our then Prime Minister, John Key (who is
>> Jewish), use the word to describe the opposition's economic
>> policies. Since it's OK with Mr Key, and since not one present day
>> speaker in a thousand knows anything about its etymology, I
>> decided to return this useful word to my active lexicon (although
>> the etymology files remain restricted to mature and serious
>> persons).
>
> This reasoning is not sound. Just because Mr. Key uses it doesn't
> make it OK for others to use it. The nword may be an example to the
> point.

The etymology seems to be uncertain. Etymonline doesn't mention it. Most
of the dictionaries I've looked at don't give an origin either, but they
do say that it's a term from UK, Australia, and New Zealand. (So not an
American word.)

The dictionaries that do give an origin say "C19: perhaps from Yiddish
shonniker or from sh(oddy) + (w)onky". Note the "perhaps". I gather that
shoniker is a Yiddish word meaning "small trader", and that it's
offensive in the US.

So we have that a word "shonky" that is not used in AmE is *perhaps"
related to a different word that is offensive in the US. (And, as far as
I know, unknown outside the US.) That, to me, is rather a flimsy
connection. I won't deny that it might have been offensive in the UK at
some stage, but if so it was so long ago that nearly everyone has
forgotten it.

In brief, the connection is as weak as the reasoning that makes
"niggardly" an offensive term in some minds.

It's worth mentioning that the very respectable consumer magazine CHOICE
has annual "Shonky Awards" for bad quality of goods and services. (This
year they went to the two biggest supermarkets.) Clearly the CHOICE
editors haven't been told about the possible offensiveness.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan wrote:

> I've just been invited to join the editorial board, and also to submit a
> paper, to the journal "Engineering Science". That's not a journal that I
> recall being in my area of specialty. The invitation says "Since your
> pսblіshed аrtіcle "Consistently Negative Ϝееdback" has been widely
> recognized, [...]".

> To that I call bullshit. The article in question is a minor research
> paper that I self-published without bothering to submit it to a research
> journal. According to ResearchGate it has been read by 77 people and it
> has no citations. I believe that it's a valid contribution to the field,
> with some valuable insights, but I'm not expecting citations or wide
> recognition.

> Over the last decade or more there's been a rash of new research
> journals, and I used to wonder why. Research journals get part of their
> income by being subsidised by professional societies, and most by
> selling subscriptions to libraries. But libraries have limited budgets,
> and are unlikely to subscribe to something seen as second-rate.

> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is quite
> shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the authors. In
> a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are willing to pay up in
> order to get their name in print. One of the attractions, it seems, is
> fast turnaround by reviewers who don't bother to check for errors. At
> typical article on the subject is
> http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/

> Another problem, apparently, is that they provide a platform for junk
> science, allowing people to publish "facts" that are not supported by
> genuine research. How long until we get to see an International Journal
> of Fake News?

All physics journals put out fake stuff, using math hocus-pocus.
All respected journals follow this course - to make the matter appear worthy they employ math hocus-pocus and statistics of course.
So there is no telling which journal is made of truth and which is composed of lies.
In practice, engineers avoid journals unless something really rare is printed somewhere. Arindam used to depend upon a system that provided him with the relevant papers, notes, presentations, etc. for his particular research work while at Telstra Research Labs (when it was running properly, that is).

bt

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 12:35:12 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2024-04-28 06:07:55 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
> > I've just been invited to join the editorial board, and also to submit a
> > paper, to the journal "Engineering Science". That's not a journal that I
> > recall being in my area of specialty. The invitation says "Since your
> > pսblіshed аrtіcle "Consistently Negative Ϝееdback" has been widely
> > recognized, [...]".
>
> I get plenty of those, often from people who claim to have been very
> impressed with some paper of mind, usually with no relation whatever to
> the theme of the journal.
> >
> > To that I call bullshit. The article in question is a minor research

The clues that is some kind of phishing scam are those non-ASCII letters up
there, the 'u' in published is not ASCII, nor is the (presumed) 'F' in
Feedback.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 29/04/24 01:01, jerryfriedman wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:

>>> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is
>>> quite shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the
>>> authors. In a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are
>>> willing to pay up in order to get their name in print. One of the
>>> attractions, it seems, is fast turnaround by reviewers who don't
>>> bother to check for errors. At typical article on the subject is
>>> http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/
>>
>> "Page charges" have existed for longer than I've been alive.

> True, but not in such a predatory way until the current millennium. The
> good journals had, and still have, high reviewing standards.

Yes, though I might point out that the main upholders of the high
standards are the referees, who aren't paid by the journals.

>> https://books.google.com/books?id=SLoLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA10

> It's interesting to look at the table on that page, because there's a
> big variation by field. In chemistry and in engineering there were no
> journals in their sample that had page charges.

However, the text says the American Chemical Society was just starting
them.

>> Are you sure there weren't any in your field, paid by your university
>> or your grant?

> Definitely not. Australian research granting bodies would have struck
> such a thing from the budget. The top journals in my field didn't have
> page charges, so you'd only be paying page charges if your work was
> rejected by the top journals. Reviewers of grant applications took note
> of where your publications were, and in particular whether they were in
> the most-respected journals or the second-rate ones.

Thanks, that's interesting.

> I've seen the argument that publication costs are a legitimate part of
> research, but it seemed to me that that argument was not accepted
> outside North America. (Back then. I don't know about now.) The argument
> makes sense, but at least in my country research grants tended to be
> small, perhaps just enough to buy a personal computer.

So universities paid for the rest--grad students, postdocs, experimental
equipment, travel to conferences, etc.?

> Second-rate publications can be helpful to academics applying for
> promotion. Typically the promotion application is assessed by people in
> other disciplines, who are less able to judge the quality of publications.

I actually don't know how that works here.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 29/04/24 23:10, jerryfriedman wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:

>> I've seen the argument that publication costs are a legitimate part
>> of research, but it seemed to me that that argument was not
>> accepted outside North America. (Back then. I don't know about
>> now.) The argument makes sense, but at least in my country research
>> grants tended to be small, perhaps just enough to buy a personal
>> computer.
>
> So universities paid for the rest--grad students, postdocs,
> experimental equipment, travel to conferences, etc.?

Yes. Research grant applications would typically be asking for money for
equipment. You'd be far less likely to be able to get money to spend on
people. Exception: if you could get funding for a "research centre of
excellence" there were fewer budgetary constraints. There weren't many
of those in the country, though.

Another exception was medical research, which was funded separately from
all other disciplines, and for which a lot more money was available.
Some of that "research" was, in my opinion, of very poor quality, e.g.
hiring nurses to find out what people thought of hospital food. But of
course there was also high-quality medical research.

Disclaimer: I've now been retired for 16 years. There may well have been
changes I know nothing about.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 2024-04-28 22:49:08 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 29/04/24 01:01, jerryfriedman wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is
>>> quite shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the
>>> authors. In a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are
>>> willing to pay up in order to get their name in print. One of the
>>> attractions, it seems, is fast turnaround by reviewers who don't
>>> bother to check for errors. At typical article on the subject is
>>> http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/
>>
>> "Page charges" have existed for longer than I've been alive.
>
> True, but not in such a predatory way until the current millennium. The
> good journals had, and still have, high reviewing standards.
>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=SLoLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA10
>
> It's interesting to look at the table on that page, because there's a
> big variation by field. In chemistry and in engineering there were no
> journals in their sample that had page charges.

Surely the Journal of the American Chemical Society had page charges,
as others, such as Biochemistry, that belong to the American Chemical
Society certainly did?

When I was at Berkeley my supervisor paid the page charges for
Biochemistry and for the Journal of Biological Chemistry ($300 per
page, as I recall, a considerable sum in 1968) from his grant. Later
when I sent a paper to Biochemistry myself I found that they had a
policy that page charges could be waived if you made a declaration that
you had no source of funds that would pay them. So I did, of course.
Later when I was on good terms with the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal
of Biological Chemistry (who died recently at the age of 101), he told
me that he knew about the policy of Biochemistry, but that it wasn't
possible for the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Much more recently (2010) we wrote a paper with a group in Madrid who
wanted to publish it in PLoS Computational Biology, which had a
substantial handling charge. Unfortunately by then I was Emeritus and
had no funding at all. Don't worry, said our colleagues in Madrid, we
have funds that we can use, so they did.
>
>> Are you sure there weren't any in your field, paid by your university
>> or your grant?
>
> Definitely not. Australian research granting bodies would have struck
> such a thing from the budget. The top journals in my field didn't have
> page charges, so you'd only be paying page charges if your work was
> rejected by the top journals. Reviewers of grant applications took note
> of where your publications were, and in particular whether they were in
> the most-respected journals or the second-rate ones.
>
> I've seen the argument that publication costs are a legitimate part of
> research, but it seemed to me that that argument was not accepted
> outside North America. (Back then. I don't know about now.) The argument
> makes sense, but at least in my country research grants tended to be
> small, perhaps just enough to buy a personal computer.
>
> Second-rate publications can be helpful to academics applying for
> promotion. Typically the promotion application is assessed by people in
> other disciplines, who are less able to judge the quality of publications.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:14:20 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2024-04-28 22:49:08 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>> On 29/04/24 01:01, jerryfriedman wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>>>> Now that I've looked around on the web, I find that the story is
>>>> quite shocking. These new journals get their money by charging the
>>>> authors. In a "publish or perish" culture, some authors are
>>>> willing to pay up in order to get their name in print. One of the
>>>> attractions, it seems, is fast turnaround by reviewers who don't
>>>> bother to check for errors. At typical article on the subject is
>>>> http://www.asee-prism.org/the-dark-side-of-open-access/
>>>
>>> "Page charges" have existed for longer than I've been alive.
>>
>> True, but not in such a predatory way until the current millennium. The
>> good journals had, and still have, high reviewing standards.
>>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=SLoLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA10
>>
>> It's interesting to look at the table on that page, because there's a
>> big variation by field. In chemistry and in engineering there were no
>> journals in their sample that had page charges.
>
>Surely the Journal of the American Chemical Society had page charges,
>as others, such as Biochemistry, that belong to the American Chemical
>Society certainly did?

I never heard of being charged for contributions to the
journals in psychiatric medicine, where my colleagues
published -- That was 20 years ago. The major journals
were published by societies that had LARGE membership
fees (whose main benefit often was the journal), and they
charged even more to the libraries that subscribed.

I know that online distribution and online journals required
changes in the business models. Being faculty probably
gives you access to a lot of online journals, and the
university pays big fees for it.

However, this Wiki article documents some fees as early
as the 1930s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge

--
Rich Ulrich