Wednesday, May 08, 2013

Long live the Open Access Movement ... Not!

And here we go again, true story, I received this email today from an Open Access 'publisher'. Obviously I am not qualified to assess this manuscript, yet the administrators of this publisher see fit to invite me to review a manuscript that clearly I am not qualified to review. As far as email mass mailings are concerned, this crap shoot takes the crown. I hope you appreciate the 'journal' title, 'Science Journal of Medicine and Clinical Trial'. You could not make it up. The worst thing is that academics in a number of countries are forced by government edict to submit to Open Access 'publishers'. Quality requirements: zero, as long as it is Open Access. So, please do submit to 'Science Journal of Medicine & Clinical Trial' to get your governmental brownie points. Academic freedom be damned. Make sure to swipe your credit card though, otherwise 'Science Journal of Medicine and Clinical Trials' and its infinite number of sister publications won't be interested in your output any longer.

Dear Colleagues

How are you? I am sure you are busy with many activities right now. However, I hope you could help us review a manuscript, entitled"Quantiferonassay versus tuberculin skin test in detection of latent TB in hemodialysis patients" that has been submitted for publication in SCIENCE JOURNAL OF MEDICINE & CLINICAL TRIAL if you are able to take on this task as well as whether you can return the Review Form by 15TH May, 2013 or earlier.

The Manuscript, Reviewer's Guide and Author Guidelines will be E-mail to you if you are interested.

In particular, please make sure that the paper addresses issues of value to our broad-based audience, and that it cuts through the thick layers of theory and verbosity for them and makes sense of it all in a clean, cohesive manner.

On behalf of the Editorial Team of the Science Journal Publication, I thank you very much in advance for your effort in this endeavor.

ABSTRACT:
Background:Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection pose a high risk of developing active TB disease. It is therefore important to detect latent TB infection (LTBI) to be able to offer treatment and prevent progression to TB disease.
Objective: to compare the performance of Quantiferon-TB Gold test (QFT-G)in the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection with tuberculin skin test (TST) among patients undergoing hemodialysis.
Patients and methods: sixty patients undergoing hemodialysis at Al-Azhar and Assiut university hospitals were subjected to TSTand QFT-G. Theagreement between both tests was evaluated with respect to age, sex, BCG vaccinationand history of contact to a known TB case.
Results: The percentage of positive TST results (induration cut off 10 mm) and positive QFT-G test results was found to be 45% & 31.7% respectively. The overall agreement between the QFT-G and the TST in hemodialysis patients was 44/60 (73.3%) and it was found to be statistically significant (P=0.001). BCG vaccination had no effect on either TST or QFT- G results in hemodialysis patients. Positive TST and QFT-G results were found to be 90% and 100 % respectively in hemodialysis patients with history of contact to known TB cases. Both QFT-G and TST results were not significantly related to age or sex. In conclusions, Both QFT-G and TST may be complementary to each other in the diagnosis of latent tuberculous infection in hemodialysis patients.

10 comments:

  1. And here I go again, true story, I received an email today from a paywall-based 'publisher'. Obviously I am not qualified to assess this manuscript, yet the administrators of this publisher see fit to invite me to review a manuscript that clearly I am not qualified to review.

    In other words, your complaint has nothing whatsoever to do with open access. There are crappy publishers all around, using all business models. The solution is simple: don't do business with them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMay 09, 2013

    Out of interest Mike, what was the topic they invited you to review on?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've had all sorts of requests to review: things like water sanitation, politics, economics, sustainability. I am a dinosaur palaeontologist. All I'm qualified to review is papers about fossil vertebrae.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike, thanks for your comments. I do dispute your description that 'there are publishers all around, using all business models.' I mean, what you say is true, but it misses the point I am making, namely that obviously the barriers to entry are so low that a 'publisher' could take their chances and operate like this. There ain't a subscription based publisher, looking after expensive to produce print-copy, operating like this. Show me one. I'm happy to show you a VERY LARGE number of open access 'publishers' operating like this.That's why I think your description is actually missing the point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yup. No journal with a real editor would ask an unqualified person to review. But the open access model does away with editors, and hence generates these random outcomes. but heck, stuff is getting published. isn't that all that counts?

    ReplyDelete
  6. ... just saying: Dear Colleagues

    How are you? I am sure you are busy with many activities right now. However, I hope you could help us review a manuscript, entitled"A novel algorithm for optimized cluster head selection " that has been submitted for publication in SCIENCE JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC if you are able to take on this task as well as whether you can return the Review Form by 15TH May, 2013 or earlier.

    The Manuscript, Reviewer's Guide and Author Guidelines will be E-mail to you if you are interested.

    In particular, please make sure that the paper addresses issues of value to our broad-based audience, and that it cuts through the thick layers of theory and verbosity for them and makes sense of it all in a clean, cohesive manner.

    On behalf of the Editorial Team of the Science Journal Publication, I thank you very much in advance for your effort in this endeavor.

    ABSTRACT:
    In wireless sensor network (WSN), each node has limited energy resources and the lifetime of network is one of the most critical issues in WSNS. Because LEACH protocol has some defects including indefinite and unevenly distributed cluster heads. By studying the energy consumption of nodes and cluster heads on data acquisition and transmission, we propose Balancing Energy Consumption LEACH (BEC-LEACH) protocol to prolong the lifetime of the network. The protocol proposed aims to study the clustering algorithm and take geographical location and remaining energy of nodes as the main factor for cluster heads selection. The simulation results show that BEC-LEACH algorithm can more effectively balance the energy consumption of nodes and prolong the lifetime of network compared with LEACH.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, udo, I went back over the last thirty or so unsolicted invitations to submit or review that I've had. Once I discounted the ones associated with conferences, that left about eight, and I was surprised to find that in fact they were all for open-access journals. (They were split about 50-50 between those that I consider legitimate, such as Hindawi titles, and those that look like scams.)

    Fortunately, I recently devised and wrote up a fool-proof method for determining which invitations to accept. I hope you and others find it useful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousMay 09, 2013

    Perhaps all published research regardless of quality is grist to the mill of professional data-mining: http://www.indexdata.com/about/staff

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, "Anonymous", you have completely lost me now. Are you suggesting that I'm a data miner in my day-job, and that this is the reason I am pro-OA? Let me assure you I have never done any mining work in my life; and neither has anyone who works for Index Data, at least during the decade I've worked there.

    this is the reason I am pro-OA.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But if that's going to be the quality of discussion here, then I guess I am wasting my time here.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.