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