The Science "Sting" and Pre-Green Fee-Based Fool's Gold vs. Post-Green No-Fault Fair-Gold

[Colin Paul Gloster]

On October 6th, 2013, Paul Colin de Gloucester emailed:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"On October 4th, 2013, Stevan Harnad sent:                                    |
|[. . .]                                                                       |
||----------------------------------------------------------------------------||
||"[. . .]                                                                    ||
||                                                                            ||
||For some peer-review stings of non-OA journals, see below:                  ||
||                                                                            ||
||                                                                            ||
||Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological ||
||journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and   ||
||Brain Sciences, 5(2), 187-195.                                              ||
||                                                                            ||
||                                                                            ||
||Harnad, S. R. (Ed.). (1982). Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in||
||scientific quality control (Vol. 5, No. 2). Cambridge University Press      ||
||                                                                            ||
||                                                                            ||
||Harnad, S. (1998/2000/2004) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature       ||
||[online] (5 Nov. 1998), Exploit Interactive 5 (2000): and in Shatz, B.      ||
||(2004) (ed.) Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowland & Littlefield. Pp.    ||
||235-242."                                                                   ||
||----------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|                                                                              |
|More stings of refereeing of non-open-access journals:                        |
|                                                                              |
|Seidl, C., & Schmidt, U., & Grösche, P. (2005). The performance of            |
|peer review and a beauty contest of referee processes of economics            |
|journals. Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 23(3): 505-551,                      |
| HTTP://DialNet.UniRioja.Es/descarga/articulo/1394347.pdf                     |
|                                                                              |
|de Gloucester, P. C. (2013). Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in            |
|Computer and Electronic Publications. Accountability in Research:             |
|Policies and Quality Assurance, 20(3), 143-166.                               |
|                                                                              |
|Also see:                                                                     |
|                                                                              |
|Labbé, C., & Labbé, D. (2013). Duplicate and fake publications in the         |
|scientific literature: How many SCIgen papers in computer science?            |
|Scientometrics, 94(1): 379-396.                                               |
|                                                                              |
|Newton, D. P. (2010). Quality and Peer Review of Research: An                 |
|Adjudicating Role for Editors. Accountability in Research: Policies           |
|and Quality Assurance, 17(3), 130-145, this is available as open              |
|access:                                                                       |
| WWW.TandFonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621003791945#tabModule             |
|                                                                              |
|Regards,                                                                      |
|Paul Colin de Gloucester"                                                     |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|


A sting of refereeing of open-access journals:
On
WWW.FastCompany.com/3041493/body-week/why-a-fake-article-cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs-was-accepted-by-17-medical-journals
someone calling himself or herself "moc" complained:
"The journals that Shrime publishes in also charge to publish. it's
called "page charges". US taxpayers actually pay the charges, not the
dear professors. Then there's a huge charge of something like $35 per
article in order to get a copy of any of the articles.

The professors don't pay any of that either. Their government grants
provide an allowance for that. So if he wants to help out poor foreign
researchers he can insist that publishers operate for free, like every
open source software project in the world. He and his colleagues
should provide the labor and stop denying authors because they are not
already in his club."

I attempted to reply but the buggy Fast-Company website took many
minutes to email a one-off hyperlink to reply (which reported "This
login link is no longer valid") . . .

Mark Shrime has made a worthwhile contribution.

Non-open-access journals (including those which do not charge page
charges) are also parasites.

Regards,
Colin Paul Gloster