Academic publishing

I’m not saying Greenfield’s a pseudoscientist. I point to her pseudoscientific reasoning. That is all

Like a good sharknado, Susan Greenfield is (a) ridiculous and (b) back for more. We all remember this defence of her claim that internet use causes autism, don’t we? I point to the increase in autism and I point to internet use. That is all. Well, whoopy do. On that basis, […]

Results being “due to” causes somehow doesn’t imply causality

So, last week I had the pleasure of enjoying this delicious meal while exploring some backstreet neighbourhoods in Muscat, Oman. See can you guess what the green stuff is… Here’s a closer look… And here it is listed on the menu:

Just a few (i.e. 120) “gibberish” research papers redacted

It’s akin to the Sokal hoax of our digital age, with a touch of Frankenstein in there too, and possibly some monkeys with typewriters. Two major publishers, Springer and IEEE, have identified over 120 papers that made it through their peer-review process but which were actually generated using a software package designed to […]

So I got this email from Noam Chomsky today, looking for my opinion…

…as did 20,000 other recipients (making their target sample an interesting n = 20,001): Dear Colleague: You have received this survey along with 20,000 other academics globally. This survey is meant to assess the attitude of the scientific community on the issue of university military research. Kindly take a moment […]

Namaste!

Blatant Plug Alert follows. ALERT!!! As mentioned elsewhere, my own academic background is in the behavioural and health sciences, specifically psychology. And aside from my research on various biological and physiological aspects of behaviour, one of my key interests is in the scientific and epistemological underpinnings of the field. Hence […]

“Scientists distort the publication process, not editors”

As reported before, the angst regarding traditional scientific journals rumbles on. Previously, the growth of ‘Open Access’ was greeted with much fanfare as representing a David-style stone lob by researchers (and their public funders) in the direction of the Goliath-style mega-industry that is scientific journal publication (and their private beneficiaries). […]