Of course you would never publish in a predatory journal...or would you?

I claim that proper scientific discovery is simply not compatible with the reigning publishing model. What can you do to make a difference?

You receive them all too often: e-mails from supposedly scientific journals praising your work in awkward English, missing only your cancer data to complete their special issue in the fields of urology and anthropology, combined. However, it is too good to be true. No actual editor would ever praise your work in that manner. Your paper will very likely not get peer-reviewed.

Other journals similarly offer speedy processing and enthusiasm for your work. However, these are approved by colleagues and your go-to registers (DOAJ and the  Norwegian register of publication channels]). So why then endure an ever-lasting peer-review process, tiresome revisions topped by a possible rejection, when you can choose a quick and dirty solution for half the cost, approved by funding authorities?

The science that benefits society should be scrutinized by fellow scientists through peer-reviewing, a process that may rob the individual scientist of a much-needed publication point needed to promote a career. Why bother being peer-reviewed when proper scientific discovery is not only bad for your career, but also a poor business model?

- Henriette Erstås, Science to the people

Language: English