Pay to Publish Journals Exposed

S'pose they'd like this?

The "kinetic energy gain component" is inversely proportional to the flux density of the integral, multiplied by the reciprocal of the square root of the RMS power generated by the two charged plates divided by the separation of said plates in meters. This is factored into the density of the air over the relative humidity and density altitude.

Any additional modes where operative unrelated to the coulombic mode will have little or no effect on the operative cumulative effect on the energy quotient of the motive force of the spacecraft.

That's perfect,, now if you could just elaborate for a few thousand words....send it along with a few thousand $'s for each journal you wish to publish in...

Interesting to know that you can elaborate on kenetic energy gain. I know of a very profitable and established firm located in Nigeria that would like to invest money so that you can develop applications appropriate to the company's intersest. If you can provide us with an active bank account, a deposit of $250,000.00 will be made within the week. We will provide specific details as to our applications once we have established contractual agreements. Your bank account is of course mandatory to begin the process.

Sooo, a combination of

"we didn't bother reading it properly, pay us anyway"

"please wire money to our respected journal via western Union"

and

"just pay us and we will publish your <ahem> paper".

Bohannan thinks there might be a sort of Consumer Reports to survey the quality of online journals and call out those that fall short. And he thinks maybe such an enterprise might regularly carry out stings like his to keep everyone in the field on their toes.

A damn good idea to weed out the scam artists and shame the real journals who are doing a poor job.

They have published the names of the journals, location, affiliations, and correspondence....A good start....

I posted twice. Do I owe more money?

Yes. Just slip 10G's into my PayPal account and I'll see that it gets to the right party.

Sorry I only have Bitcoins...

Hang on to those because they may soon be worth more than the US dollar.

Good luck with that.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/299921-feds-crack-down-on-bitcoin-exchange

Combined with the people that write and sell "original" college thesis papers, and I'd say that we may have a problem.

...but as long as everyone gets a prize at the end, it shouldn't do any real harm.

I can't find a symbol for dripping sarcasm.

From the words of Rene Descartes, if ever something proves to be wrong, even once, it is wise to doubt.

Wisdom from the 17th century, but it seems to be lost in the 21st.

His story repeats itself.

This wouldn't include magazines like 'Popular Science' or 'Mother earth news' would it?

Those two have gone so far off track with their dumbed down para science and political BS they wouldn't even make good toilet paper now compared to how they started out in life.

I think they are talking about situations like Andrew Wakefield and his flawed autism research. The Lancet got a slap on the wrist for that one! As a result, we have hundreds of deaths and injuries occuring on a daily basis because he wanted to sell Swiss Vitamines, and SHE wanted to revive a flagging career. The Lancet was aghast and did a study to see how much critical review was actually being done on their articles, and they discovered that they paid for shoddy work. Hey, it happens. This litany of suffering was the result of an accident. Can you imagine how hard it might be if a thousand other snake oil salesmen were able to get their products ratified?

I would not care if it was not for the fact that a lot of fog results which can actually kill people. The Sniffex Wand could supposedly dowse for explosives. Owner of the company only got jailed last month. Care to guess how many died? And oh look, they didn't even bother with critical reviews in journals. If they did get a good review, then how could you prosecute them for using it to sell bogus and dangerous products? The danger (as this article points out) is that snake oil salesmen can now buy credibility. That is the problem.

Is there a solution? I think there is. There is a ground swell of skeptisim around the nation. Critical thinking seems to actually be on the rise. Their mantra seems to be (x files like) trust no one, question everything. It does not mean "throw out everything" . A well known skeptic of my acquintance actually changed his mind about causes of global warming and the value of a gold based currency. And endless discussion failed to get him to change his mind about homeopathy, and cryptozoology. Critical thinking is more uncommon when you step out of Conference Room Four!

Popular Science has recently shut down all online comments, due to gloabal warming deniers questioning the premise, as well as challenges on other subjects the the PS staff has deemed to be "settled".

Don't try to use the online version as toilet paper.

You really shouldn't use that as toilet paper......... the ink is rather toxic. And if it isn't toxic, you may have some explaining to do about all the rainbow colors on you next colonoscopy exam.

Do they need to have a valid topic to publish there?

No, you just have to claim you do....

Dodgy research (and findings) can have major consequences ....
much more than buying exposure!

"Meet the student who brought the Queensland University of Technology stem cell scandal to light

• August 03, 2013 12:00AM

WHISTLEBLOWER Luke Cormack spent months trying to grow human embryonic stem cells in a QUT lab.

He was using a ''world-first'' synthetic protein recipe devised by fellow QUT scientists supervising his postgraduate studies. The project was a crucial part of Cormack's four years of study for a doctorate in life sciences and it was exciting work.

His colleagues had discovered a cheaper and more reliable way to grow human tissue, with huge implications for biology and medicine. Cormack's research concerning stem cells aimed to build on their findings.

But no matter what he tried, his cells refused to grow. He later failed his PhD. Last year he stumbled on evidence that convinced him he'd been hobbled from the start.

His revelations have caused a scandal drawing in the university's vice-chancellor, two federal government agencies, a stock-market-listed company and the Crime and Misconduct Commission.

Cormack last year found documents in computer files accessible by anyone at QUT showing photos and other images related to the research. The pictures appeared to have been re-labelled multiple times. Each time the results seemed better. Some of the images appeared to have been manipulated in Photoshop.

This year the editor of the US journal that published the research paper, ''Stem Cells and Development", retracted it.

And last Thursday, the National Health and Medical Research Council, which provided the $275,000 grant, declared it was not satisfied with QUT's handling of the investigation into the grant application. As a result of the error in the grant application the university could be forced to pay back the grant and risked serious reputational damage.

The main ingredient was a product - VitroGro - repeatedly promoted for its cell growth properties since 2007 by Tissue Therapies, a company spun off from QUT to develop products based on the researchers' work.

QUT has a 4 per cent stake in Tissue Therapies. Its value doubled to almost $2 million last Monday when the company announced European regulators had signalled approval for Tissue Therapie's wound-healing technology, also based on VitroGro.

The lead QUT researcher, Professor Zee Upton, who also has a paid consulting role as chief scientific adviser to Tissue Therapies, has declined to provide details of several sets of independent testing carried out on the cell growth formula. She says all the results are commercially confidential.

The university has offered to provide Mr Cormack $75,000 to fund a new PhD at another institution. The University of Queensland has said it will take him on, but only if he starts again from scratch. ''I just don't think I can face that,'' he says.

mark.solomons@news.com.au"

It's hard to argue with success....You can never take just one persons claim's, without definitive proof and collaborating evidence, leading to a consensus conclusion....

http://www.vitrogro.com/clinical_data.cfm

Which is why the Internet, as well as being a very useful tool, is also subject to diluting and distorting knowledge. Too many (especially younger) people accept "scientific" reports as "accepted" knowledge. And too many people accept refutation of knowledge based on equally suspect research.

(An interesting side discussion/question is: Is it necessary to repeat all the experiments (past and current) for ourselves to satisfy ourselves of their correctness? How many thoroughly critique all research we come across?)

Yes, because mistakes happen…

I recall about 20-30 years ago and did a quick google search to confirm it on this, a misplaced decimal point for the iron content of spinach…… but of course, you probably should double check my source.

Yeah, but this is organized crime doing this! Seriously!

This link is from the Economist Magazine!

Interesting....... and an excerpt:

" the criminal underworld has seized on a feature in its research system: the fact that research grants and promotions are awarded on the basis of the number of articles published, "

What is interesting is in the 70's I understood one of the differences between how a capitalist business/factory is compared to communist business/factory is how each define productivity.

Where capitalist its how many units one produces as compared the communist is how much raw material is used.

So for an example, if your purchase a farm tractor in this country, the tractor itself was built to withstand the stresses with minimum material used., as compared to a communist built tractor, its was extremely heavy.

Same would go for other items such as camping equipment.

it's interesting that's all.