Caveant lectores

39wwy

For the last couple of years I’ve asked the stage 1 students for THEO104 to work on a library research assignment.

It’s meant to encourage them (a) to use the library – the longer I teach the more I realise that libraries are places of mystery and terror to many students – and (b) to use some common sense and a bit of discretion when they’re deciding whether or not a research resource is reliable, relevant and useful for their assignments.

Yesterday (in a moment of procrastinatory distraction) I came across an example that illustrates why it’s important to develop these skills and then use them both inside academia and outside.

A friend on Facebook posted a link to an article about a study in the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural ScienceThe article was billed: “New Research on Same-Sex Households Reveals Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad.” The article’s title is a bit more circumspect: “Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition.”

I don’t want to discuss the content of the article here. I’m a historian, this paper’s by a sociologist so it’s obviously outside my field of competence.

What I do want to highlight is why it pays to exercise a bit of caution when your mates on Facebook and other internets outlets enthusiastically tout the results of a “peer reviewed study” that confirms their views about subject x.

It doesn’t take much googling to find this study picked up by various conservative websites in New Zealand and abroad, since it seems to provide “peer reviewed” academic support for their opposition to legislation in favour of same-sex marriage and adoption by same sex couples.

Peer review (as my stage 1 students will soon learn) is the process by which academics submit the work of other academics to critical scrutiny before it’s published. Books and articles are sent to two, three or more of the writer’s peers in the same academic field. The reviewers send back reports (usually anonymous) expressing an opinion on whether the book/article should be published, and usually what revisions should be made before it reaches the press.

Peer review isn’t infallible. Academics sometimes talk about it cynically. But like other things about which we express cynicism (e.g. parliament) it’s currently the best – or least bad – system we’ve got.

But in an era in which the number of your publications has become a criterion by which academics and universities are ranked, savvy publishers with access to the internet and the scent of academics’ desperation in their nostrils have spied an opportunity for providing all sorts of publications with a veneer of “peer-reviewed” respectability, but often without the rigorous scrutiny, and always at considerable expense to the author who wants his or her article published. This is known in the business as “predatory publishing” and plays on academics’ need to bag a long list of publications in order to advance through the university or, these days, even to get a job.

This brings us back to the article in the British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Science mentioned above.

In a spirit of curiosity, I decided that I’d have a look at the article my friend had mentioned. What struck me first about the website of this “British Journal” was that none of its editorial team was British. Most reside in America, one in China. I googled the details of these academics. As far as I can see, they’re legitimate. Although the article in question doesn’t yet appear on the journal’s website, most of the articles seem to be by scholars from African universities. This is not to suggest that there has to be anything substandard about scholarship from Africa, but it’s odd, once again, that African articles should be represented so disproportionately in something that bills itself as the “British Journal…”

Another thing I noticed on the top level of the journal’s website was that the publisher had a “special offer” reducing by 80-90% the amount that authors had to pay to get their articles published in its journals. As mentioned above, this suggests predatory publishing: it’s flourishing because of academics are often so desperate to get articles listed on their CVs that they’ll pay the US$500 this publisher charges for this privilege. At least in the academic fields with which I’m familiar (History, Theology, Religious Studies) legitimate academic journals don’t charge academics either for peer review or publication. I believe that’s also true of the sciences.

These features raised my suspicions and I decided to do a bit more poking around to find out about the publisher Sciencedomains International. Here I’ll refer to a 2012 review article by Jeffrey Beall in The Charleston Advisor [1] (which to the best of my knowledge and prudential judgement is a legitimate peer-reviewed journal in the field of Library and Information science – trust me, I’m an ex-librarian). Beal identifies Sciencedomains International as a predatory publisher.

Confirming my suspicions about the “British” journal Beall notes the following:

The journal titles are notable for gratuitously using geographic terms in their titles, e.g., American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, British Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. The word “International” appears in three other titles. The publisher lists offices in the U.K, the U.S., and India but is really an Indian company that operates out of India. Thus the geographical terms in the titles are an attempt to deceive potential authors.

In other words, it seems that “British” is used to lend the journal a gravitas (think British Academy, British Museum, British Medical Journal) which it might otherwise lack. In fact there’s nothing British about it.

Beall also offers the following observation about the publisher:

This publisher is a good example of a startup that tries to promote itself by closely attaching its mission and values to those of the Open Access movement itself. The message is that if you publish with them, you are a noble and benevolent researcher, making you work available to all, especially those from developing countries.

Sciencedomains lays claim to the mantle of the Open Access Movement – a legitimate attempt by academics and academic libraries worldwide to make research freely available to the communities and governments that paid for it in the first place. But this isn’t the business in which Sciencedomains finds itself. It charges its authors €375  or US$500 for publication, though it offers discounts to authors from developing countries provided that their institutions pay it $1000-4000 per year “institutional membership.” This perhaps explains the large number of journals from Africa in the British Journal of etc.

There is a conflict of interest involved in this publishing model. In Beall’s words: “the more articles a publisher accepts, the more revenue it earns.” This conflict isn’t present in genuine Open Access publishing, and it’s present to a lesser degree in the traditional user-pays model where the supply of articles – especially for the most prestigious journals – usually outstrips the demand (i.e. the filter of peer review).

Perhaps surprisingly in light of this Beall comments that Sciencedomain’s journals include some good articles among the bad ones (it’s a bit unclear about how he reached that assessment) and they do seem to be subject to some kind of peer review (the quality of which remains moot in light of the conflict of interest noted above).

As I say, I’m not really competent to judge the content of the article I mentioned at the outset – I’ll leave that to those who have some expertise in this area. Even so, the circumstances of the article’s publication do leave me darkly suspicious about its reliability.

The great cataract of information that assaults us through the internet every day is exhilarating, and I now remember with something close to astonishment my undergraduate days poking through the card catalogue and pulling books off the shelves of a rather small university library. But the caution required in trying to make some sense of the new deluge rises almost in equal proportion to its size.

Be careful out there.

References:

Beall, Jeffrey. “Five Scholarly Open Access Publishers.” The Charleston Advisor 13, no. 4 (April 2012): 5-10.

card-catalog-prehistoric-googling

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Caveant lectores

  1. Elaine February 13, 2015 / 11:09 am

    Fascinating exploration – hope THEO 104 students reap the benefits of your investigation.

    Like

  2. Rosemary Johnson February 13, 2015 / 11:50 am

    Thank you Nick for those words of wisdom and a timely reminder to all scholars no matter which level area study they are applying themselves.

    Like

  3. Philip Culbertson February 13, 2015 / 2:17 pm

    Nick, I am SO glad you wrote and published this. It’s lucid and complete, and it needs to be read widely, including here in the US.

    Like

    • Nick Thompson February 13, 2015 / 3:17 pm

      Thanks, Philip!

      Now we need some social scientists to parse the quality of the research.

      What amazes me is that the author has previously published a fair bit in reputable journals, and of course Catholic University is a reputable institution.

      So it really makes you wonder why he resorts to these dodgy publication mills when he wants to publish his most recent two articles on children of same-sex partnerships.

      Like

  4. cedar51 February 13, 2015 / 5:51 pm

    Do you believe that everyone (particularly students) has the time to search out if the paper they are reading is “for real” or that the journal/database they have swooped into is “for real”?

    I remember when I started out in Theology, an essay marker wrote a comment next to a properly researched item “that’s if you believe that” – I didn’t at time think that was particularly sensible as I was trying to be unbiased in my argument. (the marker was not you Nick T)

    I still have problems with the huge amount of guff we have available, that sometimes just doesn’t fit the bill or I now have beliefs that make what I read not worthwhile…(sorry if I not be making sense today)

    Like

    • Nick Thompson February 13, 2015 / 5:56 pm

      It’s not an exact science, so everyone is liable to be caught out from time to time.

      Also, this is something you learn to do, and don’t pick up immediately.

      But yes, I do believe that students have a responsibility to be extremely careful about their sources and the quality of their arguments. It’s a vital part of the universities’ mission as “conscience and critic of society.”

      Like

      • cedar51 February 13, 2015 / 6:35 pm

        I am not doubting the system, what I am doubting is whether a database might give us the impression that what we are viewing is correct analysis for our respective needs.

        That makes it difficult IMHO for me the student to decide (weigh up) what to use… “will I pick the right essay to reference?”

        I appreciate your time in answering my comments.

        As you know I’m having leave this year but actually I am still studying academically and currently have myself involved with “sacred geometry” to do with my “garden design” utilising art forms. Something I hadn’t expected when my mentor approved the main creativity project.

        Hopefully in late October you will be invited to view said “garden” – it won’t exactly be organic or harvestable though…

        Like

  5. Nick Thompson February 13, 2015 / 7:35 pm

    In its current state of chaos, my garden exhibits anything but sacred geometry

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s