[Irtalk] Peer Review Reports from Questionable Publishers: Three Examples | Scholarly Open Access

[Hilton Gibson]

This is a sham peer review. I imagine they use the same or similar text for
other reviews as well. The publisher’s goal is to get the paper accepted as
quickly as possible and pocket the article processing charges.

Sadly, younger researchers who submit their first papers to publishers such
as these may not realize that the peer review is bogus. They might conclude
that all peer review is conducted this way.

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/07/17/peer-review-reports-from-questionable-publishers-three-examples/

*​This seems to be the BIG problem with article processing charges​, it's
use by fraudulent journals, undermines peer review, the core tenant of the
scientific method.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lib.sun.ac.za/pipermail/irtalk/attachments/20140718/81cdb1fb/attachment.html>