To the Editor:
Back in March, The Chronicle helped sound the alarm about predatory publishers (“‘Predatory’ Online Journals Lure Scholars Who Are Eager to Publish,” March 4). This appellation refers to a new type of academic spam—publishers who launch huge collections of online journals with little or no academic oversight, spam the inboxes of legitimate academics, and then charge exorbitant fees to anyone foolish enough to submit an actual paper. These outfits have been accused of a range of ethical violations: plagiarism, shoddy to non-existent peer review, and, most especially, fraudulently listing academic editors who in fact have nothing to do with the journal. The Chronicle did a great job of shedding some light on this unsavory side of online publishing.
Unfortunately, The Chronicle has now also given some unwitting support to the predatory-publishing world by publishing a summary of a new research article on the impact of different test formats on student retention (“Open-Book, Closed-Book, or ‘Cheat Sheet’? Researchers Test the Merits of Different Exam Types,” December 12). The problem? The summarized research article had appeared in Psychology Research, a “journal” of David Publishing, one of the most notorious members of the predatory-publishing ecosystem. Why would The Chronicle rely on such a disreputable source?
Perhaps it is because the article in question seems of high quality. The research, conducted by Afshin M. Gharib, William L. Phillips, and Noelle Mathew, features an elegant experimental design, a large sample size, and strong statistical evidence for the conclusions drawn. Kudos to the researchers for a well-designed study on such a practical topic.
The apparent quality of the article, however, cannot override the dubious nature of the journal it was published in. Psychology Research is not a credible source for empirical research. No reviewing editors are listed. Earlier this month, the journal’s Web site listed six academic editors, without their affiliations. When I tried contacting these editors, two could not be found anywhere on Google, two disavowed all knowledge and affiliation with the journal, and two did not respond. As I pressed for details, however, the Web site was altered, and the editorial board listing is now completely blank. It is not clear that there is any academic stewardship at this journal.
The poor academic review process at Psychology Research is evident in some (though not all) of the papers it has published. Last year, for example, readers were treated to an analysis of Spinoza’s Ethics in which “the author would like to mine the erotic potential of propositions 43 and 44 of Part III” (“Turning Things Around: Love, Hatred and the Promise of Erotic Life in Spinoza and Marcuse”). Also available is a paper proposing a new form of therapy: “Psychoenergetic Drawing® combines the double vital aspects of activity and psychic life in the therapeutic practice” (“Psychoenergetic Drawing: A Proposal for the Elaboration of Traumatic Events With Analysis of the Depth, Body Therapy and Imaginary”).
As a respected secondary source, The Chronicle should only draw from sources that are credible. For empirical research, this must include a strong academic review process. Avoiding sources like Psychology Research is important not only for the credibility of The Chronicle but also for the containment of the predatory publisher problem. Please continue to spotlight the dubious practices of this publishing segment; don’t pour fuel on the fire by giving free and uncritical acclaim to its products.
Bob Calin-Jageman
Neuroscience Program Director
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Dominican University
River Forest, Ill.