Scientific publishing

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 […]

“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). […]

A long and tedious blog post about scientific publishing

The world of scientific publishing continues to excite. Long-standing readers will recall that I have addressed this topic before. My remarks have even been quoted by The Guardian, no less (well, by The Guardian’s website at any rate). To recap, the controversies here revolve around the funding model used to […]

Quick media round-up is quick

I am totally on holidays right now. I even have a beard. However, I still function at an intellectual level (for all intents and purposes). Here are two minor updates regarding ongoing media coverage of this blog/blogger-with-beard. Yesterday, The Guardian’s Higher Education Network included my post on paywalls in its […]