I think we can all agree that finding a way to open access to research is an undeniable public good. Many of us can also agree that while immediate open access may not be financially sustainable, open archiving is very promising. And whatever your feelings about open access, I think we can all agree that to be valuable scholarly publications must not only be widely available, but their contents must also be reliable. That's where peer review comes in.
Peer review is supposed to ensure that published papers adhere to widely accepted scholarly standards. It can't ensure that everything published is correct. It can ensure, when properly done, that what is published is worthy of consideration.
But like any system where human beings are involved, peer review isn't perfect. It works most of the time, but occasionally it fails. I just ran across such a case.1
Peer review is supposed to ensure that published papers adhere to widely accepted scholarly standards. It can't ensure that everything published is correct. It can ensure, when properly done, that what is published is worthy of consideration.
But like any system where human beings are involved, peer review isn't perfect. It works most of the time, but occasionally it fails. I just ran across such a case.1
John Baez describes the case of M. S. El Naschie.
Actually, this case isn't a failure of peer review. It's a failure by a publisher to ensure that peer review happens. It's an example of what happens when peer review is avoided, and the results aren't pretty.
1Dan Lemire provided the pointer.
2Stop laughing. I am being sarcastic here, so you know that I'm actually fairly cynical.
El Naschie is editor in chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. This journal is published by Elsevier, one of the biggest players in the science publishing business.The December 2008 issue has five papers in which El Naschie is listed as the sole author. It's not unusual for an editor to publish a few papers in the journal he edits, but five papers in one issue and 322 in total? That's more than a little suspicious. I'm not enough of a mathematician to evaluate any of the papers, but John Baez is, and here's what he concludes:
But here's where things get interesting: this journal also lists 322 papers with El Naschie as an author! (emphasis mine)
In short: this paper is even less sophisticated than what the Bogdanoff brothers wrote. And all the other papers I've read by El Naschie are of a similar quality.It's bad enough that Elsevier charges libraries over $4500 per year to subsribe to Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. It's worse that they monitor their journals so poorly that they would allow someone who appears to be a complete hack to be one of their chief editors. If I were more cynical,2 I'd think that Elsevier is more interested in profits than in scholarly quality.
Now, I get crud like this in my email every day. I delete it without comment. What makes this case different is that El Naschie gets to publish these papers in a superficially respectable journal that he actually edits.
Actually, this case isn't a failure of peer review. It's a failure by a publisher to ensure that peer review happens. It's an example of what happens when peer review is avoided, and the results aren't pretty.
1Dan Lemire provided the pointer.
2Stop laughing. I am being sarcastic here, so you know that I'm actually fairly cynical.
Leave a comment