Fica aqui este artigo como forma de se revelar um pouco mais do mundo dos jornais "científicos".
The Open Information Science Journal failed to spot that the incomprehensible computer-generated paper was a fake. This was despite heavy hints from its authors, who claimed they were from the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology – which forms the acronym Crap.
[...]
Davis, with the help of Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at the New England Journal of Medicine, created the hoax computer science paper. The pair submitted their paper, Deconstructing Access Points, under false names. Four months later, they were told it had been accepted and the fee to have it published was $800 (almost £500).
This is a great test case on how peer review really works. In this case it was all about the money and now this journal has egg on its face. I myself am a bit skeptical of any scientific “peer review” that is done in an echo camber, which today most are. Mahmood Alam, Bentham’s director of publications, told New Scientist: “In this particular case, we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not.” Davis told the magazine that he had not been directly contacted.
0 comentários:
Enviar um comentário
Os 10 mandamentos do comentador responsável:
1. Não serás excessivamente longo.
2. Não dirás falso testemunho.
3. Não comentarás sem deixar o teu nome.
4. Não blasfemarás porque certamente o editor do blogue não terá por inocente quem blasfemar contra o seu Deus.
5. Não te desviarás do assunto.
6. Não responderás só com links.
7. Não usarás de linguagem profana e grosseira.
8. Não serás demasiado curioso.
9. Não alegarás o que não podes evidenciar.
10. Não escreverás só em maiúsculas.