Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

It Just Got a Lot Harder to Pretend that Predatory Publishing Doesn't Matter

posted by martyb on Wednesday August 08 2018, @07:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the Publish-AND-Perish dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

The first solid indication of how widespread this problem really is came with last year's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) action against one of the largest and most profitable of the alleged predators, the prolific journal publisher and conference organizer OMICS, which publishes 785 titles generating over $50M in annual revenues. The FTC alleges that OMICS makes false promises of peer review in return for article processing charges (APCs), assesses those charges without disclosing them up front (then refuses to let authors withdraw their papers from submission), and lies about both the membership of its editorial boards and the names of presenters at the many conferences it sponsors - all classic examples of predatory publishing practices.

Now comes a small flood of even more alarming reports [...]

(source)

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
It Just Got a Lot Harder to Pretend that Predatory Publishing Doesn't Matter | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 16 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 09 2018, @12:53AM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Thursday August 09 2018, @12:53AM (#719156) Homepage
    H-factor was invented for a reason. No amount of shitty long tail can improve your H.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Thursday August 09 2018, @07:51AM

    by shrewdsheep (5215) on Thursday August 09 2018, @07:51AM (#719285)

    You might think so, but there is a catch. You can apply the concept of H-factors to journals to and, lo and behold, the "shitty" journals (AKA high volume) score very well (e.g. Plos One). This is due to the huge citation base they have. Every added publication can only improve the H-index it can never lower it. This is different with impact when every added article is a burden for the impact factor. In conclusion: people with a lot of publications usually have better h-indeces.