Leave a comment

Comments 6

a_steep_hill May 6 2009, 17:14:00 UTC
Link is horked.

Didn't Merk just get busted for doing exactly the same thing?

Oh, I see. Elsevier published the journal at Merck's behest. Joy.

This seems kind of like selling credit default swaps that you don't have the cash to back: so obviously immoral and fraudulent that no one bothers to make any laws or regulations against it, such that it is, de facto, legal.

Reply


akaba May 6 2009, 21:16:23 UTC
FWIW Elsevier is known to be the worst of the major publishers. They publish several of the best field-specific journals and hundreds of incredibly low ranked journals, but sell them bundled to universities so that the subscription count of the low journals (at least electronically) goes up. You'll even find "creation science" in some of the unread ones I believe ( ... )

Reply

montyy0 May 6 2009, 23:38:38 UTC
The thing is, Elsevier and other for-profit publishers frequently make the argument that where they provide value over e-journals is that they have the clout to guarantee the peer review process... and there may be some merit there, since any yahoo (e.g. crazy creationists) can create their own e-journal where they select the "peers" for review. But the hypocrisy is palpable if the for-profit publishers have no integrity anyway....

Reply

akaba May 7 2009, 00:19:37 UTC
Agreed -- I'm not trying to defend them, just point out that not all the publishers are as worthy of disdain as they are.

Reply

_octopod May 7 2009, 18:48:55 UTC
And PalArch! Three different journals under a common umbrella:

"The PalArch Foundation offers possibilities for fast, scientific and accessible publication. The journals are so-called web based publications and publish scientific papers in various disciplines.

The journals currently accept submissions in the fields of archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, vertebrate palaeontology and archaeology of northwest Europe."

Reply


icarus88 May 15 2009, 19:53:24 UTC
On a related note,
Merck has allegedly published fake medical journals in order to sell Vioxx, pulling in $2 billion a year, until the drug started killing people and was recalled in 2004.

From the article:

"An ongoing class-action trial against Merck & Co. has included claims of a series of controversial marketing techniques that have roiled the international science community -- including the creation of phony medical journals full of previously published studies favorable to Merck's drugs. "

Link to story:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Drugs/story?id=7577646&page=1

Reply


Leave a comment

Up