The Sokal Incident, Pt. 638

[Iason Ouabache]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html?full=true&print=true

At New Scientist we love a good hoax, especially one that both amuses and makes a serious point about the communication of science. So kudos to Philip Davis, a graduate student in library and information science at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who revealed yesterday on The Scholarly Kitchen blog that he got a nonsensical computer-generated paper accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free.

As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing."

Sheer nonsense
So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

The paper, entitled "Deconstructing Access Points" (pdf) made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals:

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].

Acronym clue
Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.

Yet four months after the article was submitted, "David Phillips" received an email from Sana Mokarram, Bentham's assistant manager of publication:

This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication.

The publication fee was $800, to be sent to a PO Box in the United Arab Emirates. Having made his point, Davis withdrew the paper.

Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."

"Why hasn't he attempted to contact me directly in order to determine my true identity?" Davis responds.

I'm kinda meh since it was just another shitty vanity press.  The really funny part of the article is here:

This is just the latest use of SCIgen to probe the vetting of scientific papers. The program was devised by Jeremy Stribling, Daniel Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who first used it to generate a spoof paper that was accepted for presentation at the 2005 World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI), which charged speakers $390 to attend.

The MIT students evidently weren't the only people annoyed by WMSCI's unsolicited emails and pay-to-play approach: for those not offended by profanity, here is another submission to the 2005 conference [pdf format, contains possibly offensive language] that approaches genius, especially in figures 1 and 2.

[Requia ☣]

I'm kinda meh since it was just another shitty vanity press.  The really funny part of the article is here:

It's incredibly common to charge the paper writer for printing in academic journals, sometimes running into the thousands.