4 ms·

There are much more egregious examples in computer science publishing. A paper that just repeated the words "get me off your fucking mailing list" over and over

There are much more egregious examples in computer science publishing. A paper that just repeated the words "get me off your fucking mailing list" over and over [1] was published in a journal. I also remember there being some automatic paper generators that resulted in several publications several years back. This is 100% an issue with bogus for-profit publishing, not with any particular area of study. [1] http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf

airstrike 8y ago
Figure 1 really drives the point home
throwaway2048 8y ago
Not a journal of anybody cares about in any way whatsoever, just a scam journal that attempts to extract fees from desperate to publish researchers. Which is why they were spamming people.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  The same is true of the journals that published the hoax papers mentioned in the article.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    I find it phenomenally interesting that people simply say what they want to be true with no consideration for whether it is or not. We are indeed moving into a post-fact world aren't we? [1] Here is the wiki page on the 'get me off your mailing list' paper. Here [2] is the page on the journal that chose to accept (after revisions) the Mein Kampf paper. You might notice certain differences. The other journals that accepted the fake papers are part of the T&F/Springer publishing networks, and some responded in this [3] article. They were not scam journals by any means of the word, just journals blinded by ideological bias. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Advanced_Computer_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Advan... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affilia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affilia [3] - https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/03/dog-rape-hoax-papers-pluckrose-lindsay https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/03/dog-rape-hoax-papers-pluc...
    - daveFNbuck 8y ago
      It looks like I may have been misinformed or working off of old information. I'll look into this some more, thanks.
mpweiher 8y ago
The difference was that this was not a reputable publication, but a predatory scam. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journ... These were "real" publication, with peer- and/or editorial-review. Not the same thing by a long shot.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  It's my understanding that the hoax papers in the article were also published by predatory scam journals. Even the "get me off your fucking mailing list" paper went through peer review. > “They told me to add some more recent references and do a bit of reformatting,” he said.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > It's my understanding that the hoax papers in the article were also published by predatory scam journals. If the hoax papers were published in "predatory scam journals," they're engaged in an entirely different type of predatory scam than the "get me off your fucking mailing list" computer science journal. Sort of like the difference between fake news and herbal Viagra spam/scams. > Even the "get me off your fucking mailing list" paper went through peer review. >> “They told me to add some more recent references and do a bit of reformatting,” he said. Obviously not any peer review process that deserves the name. That must have been an entirely automatic (or even automated) bit of feedback.
    - daveFNbuck 8y ago
      What makes the journals the hoax papers were published in different?
nostromo 8y ago
That’s not a fair comparison. That’s not a peer reviewed journal — it’s a publication that will publish anything for a fee. All of the papers in the original article are peer reviewed.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  The papers in the article were published in journals that will publish anything for a fee. The "get me off your fucking mailing list" paper was also peer reviewed. The reviewer asked for formatting changes and citations, very similar to the reviews that these other hoax papers got.
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    No, that’s completely incorrect. The papers in the article above were published in top (or close to top) journals in their respective fields.
    - daveFNbuck 8y ago
      I have never seen someone claim that before. Can you back that up?
      - yorwba 8y ago
        "Gender, Place and Culture" ( https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cgpc20/current https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cgpc20/current ) has an impact factor of 1.594. No idea whether that's enough to make it a top journal in feminist geography or not. The retraction notice for the "Dog Park" paper is currently the most recent publication on that site.
        daveFNbuck 8y ago
        That certainly contradicts what I've heard about these papers before. Gender, Place and Culture does seem to be a top journal. Thanks.
      - 8y ago

airstrike 8y ago

Figure 1 really drives the point home

throwaway2048 8y ago

Not a journal of anybody cares about in any way whatsoever, just a scam journal that attempts to extract fees from desperate to publish researchers. Which is why they were spamming people.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
The same is true of the journals that published the hoax papers mentioned in the article.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I find it phenomenally interesting that people simply say what they want to be true with no consideration for whether it is or not. We are indeed moving into a post-fact world aren't we? [1] Here is the wiki page on the 'get me off your mailing list' paper. Here [2] is the page on the journal that chose to accept (after revisions) the Mein Kampf paper. You might notice certain differences. The other journals that accepted the fake papers are part of the T&F/Springer publishing networks, and some responded in this [3] article. They were not scam journals by any means of the word, just journals blinded by ideological bias. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Advanced_Computer_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Advan... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affilia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affilia [3] - https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/03/dog-rape-hoax-papers-pluckrose-lindsay https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/03/dog-rape-hoax-papers-pluc...
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    It looks like I may have been misinformed or working off of old information. I'll look into this some more, thanks.

mpweiher 8y ago

The difference was that this was not a reputable publication, but a predatory scam. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journ... These were "real" publication, with peer- and/or editorial-review. Not the same thing by a long shot.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
It's my understanding that the hoax papers in the article were also published by predatory scam journals. Even the "get me off your fucking mailing list" paper went through peer review. > “They told me to add some more recent references and do a bit of reformatting,” he said.
- 394549 8y ago
  > It's my understanding that the hoax papers in the article were also published by predatory scam journals. If the hoax papers were published in "predatory scam journals," they're engaged in an entirely different type of predatory scam than the "get me off your fucking mailing list" computer science journal. Sort of like the difference between fake news and herbal Viagra spam/scams. > Even the "get me off your fucking mailing list" paper went through peer review. >> “They told me to add some more recent references and do a bit of reformatting,” he said. Obviously not any peer review process that deserves the name. That must have been an entirely automatic (or even automated) bit of feedback.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    What makes the journals the hoax papers were published in different?

nostromo 8y ago

That’s not a fair comparison. That’s not a peer reviewed journal — it’s a publication that will publish anything for a fee. All of the papers in the original article are peer reviewed.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
The papers in the article were published in journals that will publish anything for a fee. The "get me off your fucking mailing list" paper was also peer reviewed. The reviewer asked for formatting changes and citations, very similar to the reviews that these other hoax papers got.
- xyzzyz 8y ago
  No, that’s completely incorrect. The papers in the article above were published in top (or close to top) journals in their respective fields.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    I have never seen someone claim that before. Can you back that up?
    - yorwba 8y ago
      "Gender, Place and Culture" ( https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cgpc20/current https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cgpc20/current ) has an impact factor of 1.594. No idea whether that's enough to make it a top journal in feminist geography or not. The retraction notice for the "Dog Park" paper is currently the most recent publication on that site.
      - daveFNbuck 8y ago
        That certainly contradicts what I've heard about these papers before. Gender, Place and Culture does seem to be a top journal. Thanks.
    - 8y ago