From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:02:05 +0000 I know that neither the authors of the study nor even the author of the New Yorker article will have written the headline, but it is a study in hyperbole. “Ruining science"? Really? If fraudulent scammers on the fringes of scholarly communication are the biggest problem science faces then we can all congratulate ourselves. I don’t even think they are ‘ruining’ scholarly communications, but I guess hysteria generates clicks. On 26 Mar 2017, at 20:31, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:21:54 -0700 The New Yorker has picked up on two recent stories already familiar to liblicense-l readers: the Wroclaw experiment in promoting the credentials of a non-existent scientist for service on journal editorial boards and the termination of Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers. I don't see there's anything new in this piece, but the New Yorker is a bully pulpit and the topics will surely get wider discussion now. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/paging-dr-fraud-the-fake-publishers-that-are-ruining-science Jim O'Donnell Arizona State University