Who's afraid of peer review?

By J. Bohannon. Science, 2013

936 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Dozens of open-access journals targeted in an elaborate Science sting accepted a spoof research article, raising questions about peer-review practices in much of the open-access world.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/33ff45f364dac785b8bd4e3bf70fb169dc1d39b4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

1. M. Sylos-Labini
2. Martin Kenney
3. Manuel F. Bagüés
4. Bo-Christer Björk
5. Cenyu Shen
6. Ben R. Martin
7. Mario Biagioli
8. John P. Walsh

In Statistics and Probability

1. Cenyu Shen
2. Martin Kenney
3. Cyril Labbé
4. Manuel F. Bagüés
5. Bo-Christer Björk
6. Ben R. Martin
7. John P. Walsh

Citations in the corpus

• Who publishes in “predatory” journals? (2015, background): “Through tracing the Internet protocol (IP) addresses of journal editors and the location of their bank accounts, Bohannon (2013) found that many of the journals accepting his fake article were based in developing countries, particularly India.”
• Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment (2019, background): “For example, Bohannon (2013) reports submitting a bogus article to 304 open-access journals and receiving acceptances from over 50%.”
• ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics (2015, methodology): “An experiment designed by the journalist John Bohannon, in which a spoof manuscript containing major methodological errors and other weaknesses was accepted by 157 journals and rejected only by 98, also caught the attention of the general media [12].”
• Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals (2021, background): “These nonsensical papers submitted can be written by humans (e.g., the Sokal Affair and Bohannon, 2013) or computer generated (e.g., SCIgen, Mathgen).”
• A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations (2019, background): “For example, Butler (2003) finds that, in Australia, a greater reliance on journals indexed in ISI Web of Knowledge (today known as the Web of Science) was followed by an increase of the quantity but not the quality of research. Similarly, Moosa (2016) shows that the adoption of a bucket classificat”