I have created a registration form for the “Publisher bans & DORA” roundtable event. Just enter your email and you will get an update when I have panelists and links to the online discussion ready to go.
12 March 2023
Register for “Publication bans & DORA” roundtable
11 March 2023
A star chamber for predatory journals
Look, I am not one for conspiracy theories.
But if I was a major academic publisher, and I saw a lot of business going to new, upstart publishers that had even slightly questionable editorial practices, I’m not sure I would back a way from a little aggressive corporate public relations. I might set up a website that claimed to be providing a service by listing dodgy journals and publishers, and then – Bam! 💥 – I label a bunch of stuff coming from the competition as “predatory.”
Meanwhile, today I learned about a website called Predatory Reports in Scientific Publishing. I noticed today because they recently stuck a bunch of MDPI journals on their blacklist.
Their Twitter account has been around for a little over a year. It’s interesting that I never heard of them before they target MDPI, which fits the narrative of people who are already grumpy (legitimately so) with MDPI.
Looking around their website, I clicked the “About” page, I thought this was an overly honest image:
An empty conference room.
The written description is no more informative. This group is “association of scientists and researchers.” No names, emails, how many people are involved, nothing.
Now, there may be a reason for this. The debates about anonymity in science are long, but usually come down to, “There are some cases where it’s appropriate.”
For instance, the creator of the original blacklist of predatory journals, Jeffrey Beall, tended to have people threaten to sue him with alarming regularity. You may recall he took down his list and never explained why.
But a far more important question is how this “association” decides what journals to include on their list. There is zero description of criteria or process here.Compare this to another organization that tries to identify predatory publishers, Cabell’s. Their list is a commercial product, but their “About predatory reports” page at least promises that the full report includes, “A complete record of when, what and why a journal is put in Predatory Reports.”
I looked at one of their blog posts about SCRIP to try to glean how they are assessing publishers. They quote Beall’s work, they quote Cabell’s report, and have a list of references at the end. It looks like just a haphazard compilation of other people’s writings.
This is a step up from how I thought the list might be generated (just by using vibes), but there doesn’t seem to be anything new here. I don’t see a lot of value.
For an association that wants to “build trust in scientific research and publications,” they don’t seem to have given much thought to how a blacklist made by a completely opaque process by a group of utterly unknown people looks more like a star chamber than a trustworthy organization.
External links
07 March 2023
Are grad students employees or students?
Many people have noted that grad students are in a weird dual state. Sometimes that are treated as employees. Sometimes they are treated as students. Which they get treated as often seems to depend on which is advantageous to the university at that particular moment.
Over the last couple of years, a combination of events has meant that many professors – particularly in the US – are finding it harder to get graduate students and post docs. So the number of people broadcasting on Twitter that they are recruiting students has gone up.
And what has struck more more and more is that those tweets look like job ads.
They’re not, “Come join our master’s program in my department,” they’re “I have a master’s position to study desert fishes using ecological modelling and environmental DNA” or what have you.
Opportunities for graduate students are consistently described as “positions,” not programs.
I would have expected this for postdoc positions. I think postdocs have always been more or less this way, because there6s no degree associated with being a postdoc. But I wouldn’t have expected this as much for a doctoral programs, and lately I’m seeing a lot of tweets that are advertising for master’s students like this.
This is probably an inevitable outcome of graduate students being supported by professors’ research grants.
So I think we have to really stop thinking of graduate degrees as degree programs, because we aren’t treating them that was. They are entry level contract positions for scientists, in which you are partly compensated with a credential rather than money.
06 March 2023
I miss the fail whale
At least when Twitter tanked when it was a new service, you got an amusing, cute marine mammal to look at.
2023-03-06.png)
Now you just get a cryptic error message.
Several sites are reporting that every link on Twitter is doing this.
External links
Every link on Twitter is broken right now
Twitter Displaying Error Messages for Web Links Posted in Tweets
05 March 2023
My social media style
Okay,I blame Doc Becca for linking to abbrevia.me. It generates descriptions of how people use Twitter.
Doctorzen’s tweets cover a wide range of topics, including science, education, politics, and social issues. They often share articles and express their opinions on current events. They also engage with other users and respond to their comments and questions. Doctorzen’s writing style is straightforward and concise, with occasional humor and sarcasm. They use hashtags and retweets to amplify important messages and promote causes they support. Overall, Doctorzen appears to be an active and engaged Twitter user who uses the platform to share information and connect with others.
Ooh, concise! I worked hard for that one!
External links
02 March 2023
That “intelligent design” bill hasn’t died yet
Well, hell.
The pro “intelligent design” bill in West Virginia passed the Senate Education Committee.
The bill has now gone to the House Education Committee. The bill’s progress can be tracked on the West Virginia bill tracker.
This Metro News article has more background on the bill, including the slightly strange fact that the bill was prompted by an idea from a high school student.
Committee chair Amy Grady, R-Mason, is leader sponsor and told the committee that the idea was brought to her by Hayden Hodge from Hurricane High.
Hodge appeared before the committee and said a teacher gave him the idea. The teacher wanted the option to teach ID alongside evolution.
“I am not in favor of getting rid of evolution,” Hodge said. And ID is not ultimately religious. (I hope this is Hodge’s opinion, not the reporter trying to state a fact. - ZF)
“I’m not asking for religion to be taught in classrooms, period,” Hodge said.
This is, of course, untrue. “Intelligent design” is a religious argument. This has been documented many times. We have the receipts.
Reading the comments from the committee members is depressing. A retired science teacher was arguing in favour of this bill. In favour.
I’m glad the American Civil Liberties Union spoke out against the bill.
The bill made it out of committee with only one vote against it. The report doesn’t say who it was, but my hat is off to you, anonymous West Virginia senator.
External links
Senate education committee approves 4 bills including ‘intelligent design’ measure
‘Intelligent Design’ bill threatens science education in West Virginia
16 February 2023
A zombie idea rises again: New attempt to get “intelligent design” into classes
Policy analyst Bryan Kelley is reporting on a bill in West Virginia – Senate Bill 619 – that would legalize the teaching of intelligent design.
There is zero ambiguity in the text of this short bill.
(A)llowing teachers in public schools that include any one or more of grades kindergarten through 12 to teach intelligent design as a theory of how the universe and/or humanity came to exist.
Last year, I predicted that we would see a renewed push to get religious ideas into public schools in the United States. The legal landscape has completely changed for teaching religious ideas in public schools after the US Supreme Court said, “We don’t use the Lemon test any more.”
Honestly, I’m only surprised it took this long.
At this point, the bill has been referred to committee. And many state bills die in committee, never get voted on, never become law. But here’s the thing. There is a pattern of political parties acting in many states more or less simultaneously to push bills towards legislation. I would not be surprised to see a whole bunch of similar bills in state governments before the end of the year.
Hat tip to Tara Smith.
P.S.—Hey, support the National Center for Science Education!
Related posts
Prediction: American creationists will try again to get evolution out of schools
Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) decision clears way for new science education battles
External links
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)