The Boston Globe ran an excellent story July 31 about religious-right researcher Paul Cameron.
According to the article, Cameron and his “Family Research Institute” — identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center — buy space in the small Montana publishing outfit called Psychological Reports. The Globe says respected professional journals charge no fee and permit peer reviewers to veto submissions with flawed research methodologies and illogical conclusions. But Psych Reports happily prints studies rejected by the pros — for $27.50 per page. And the “peers” may comment but have no veto power. According to the Globe, P.R. editor Doug Ammons said he personally disagrees with much of what Cameron has written but believes he should be published.
Upon getting his propaganda published, Cameron then pays the Christian Communication Network to disseminate his press releases throughout religious-right and social-conservative political networks. CCN operator Gary L. McCullough told the Globe that he had not taken the time to examine Cameron’s research.
These networks seem to know that Cameron’s propaganda is false: When The Boston Globe asked the Traditional Values Coalition about its hosting of Cameron’s propaganda, the TVC “within minutes” removed all references to Cameron from its web site.
But others, including some medical professionals, appear willing to put politics before sound science: The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is a small group of antigay Bible Belt doctors that split away from the professional American Academy of Pediatrics. ACP board member Bose Ravenel says of Cameron: “I’ve read a lot of his research. It is well done.”
The Globe quotes Cameron describing gays and lesbians and those sympathetic to them as “death marketers” and “death activists. As you see, the Internet has given us far more clout than our limited budget and efforts could otherwise hope for.”
Hat tips: MassResistance Watch, Mass Marrier.
What other bloggers say: Jonathan Rowe
This is really bad. So Psychological Reports is essentially a vanity press for supposedly “peer reviewed” articles? This wouldn’t mean so much if it weren’t for the lazy reporters who happily quote this garbage without determining if the source is reliable. This BG article does a lot, but I would like to see a gutsy investigative reporter ala Mike Wallace on the other side of a microphone asking some touch questions so all the world can hear the answers.
How would you like a medical precedure performed on you that was developed as the result of such “medical free speech”. Just plain disgusting, and sad. It’s no better than buying a degree online and perhaps worse.
David
In many years of following this…I have found Paul Cameron is used by ALL anti-gay and exgay groups, in one way or another (and whether they know it or not).Directly: here are the results of a simple search at CWFA for “Paul Cameron” OR “Family Research Institute”
Second Hand: Some almost never use Cameron outright these days– FoF in particular. FoF tend to reference Nicolosi, FRC tend to prefer Satinover. Why? Don’t know, perhaps they market their books. And most readers will be unaware that both these authors use Cameron. Other “sources” include Judith Reisman, NARTH, Med Inst or Sex. Health, Cath Med Assn … the list goes on and on, and all these use… Cameron.This is a dramatic change from early-mid 1990’s when they had no qualms about quoting him directly — and, curiously, it is from about this time that FoF, FRC et al founded or started priming these organisations with cash.The “it’s all my own work” approach: As example, FRC’s Dailey simply retypes a piece from Cameron, and then calls it his own. Of course, when FRC wish to throw up this “research” they refer to Dailey, not the inventor. PFOX frequently use Throckmorton who frequently references… himself. Saves debate about “what the author really intended” I guess.The “Who the heck are this person anyway?” authors: ever wonder why they use to Dr. Timothy Dailey over at FRC when they release some scientific sounding “medical research” into homosexuality? Well, he is a real doctor, don’t you know… of bible studies. Another Exodus 2005 Conference expert who’s qualifications crack me up each and every time — Sue Bohlin — who proudly notes she is a “professional calligrapher”. Boy, I’m impressed, but with a name like Probe Ministries they should consider resurrecting Colin Cook to join the team he he he . Third, or is that forth time lucky perhaps?Actually, while we’re at it, let’s add up the combined intellectual horsepower of all Exodus’ speakers (answer: there’s barely enough combined torque to prepare one of your notorious fruit cocktails for you and three friends).Stealth: instead of looking for Cameron directly, be alert for any anti-gay “research” claimed to be from “Psychological Reports” or “Omega” or “Adolescence” but also given without attribution. Herek covers this well.Shame-Faced Filthy Dirty Deception: a variation on the above, but even more blatant. Here is the executive director of AFA Indiana at a public forum:
Did you all get that? He knew it was Paul Cameron. He hid the fact. He was caught out by someone who fortunately knew what he was hiding. An apology followed? Nope… he “recovered” by a string of lies and… he had been preparing to do exactly this for years.Enough said, thanks. Lying is a Family Value that my family doesn’t encourage.
A bit of a nit. I’ve known people who have reviewed papers proposed for publication in peer-reviewed publications. I don’t believe that they actually have the power to veto publication. They would often suggest that the paper not be published, or that it not be published without various modifications. It would then be up to the publications’ editorial boards how to proceed.
It is true that peer review enhances the reliability of the papers, primarily in the area of citations. Oftentimes the reviewers would know of citations that the authors of the paper were unaware of. Preprints of scientific papers (non-peer reviewed) are regularly posted on the ArXiv web site https://www.arxiv.org/ and they are notoriously lacking.
Also, when I was in grad school, I was told that even peer reviewed publications had something of a page charge for publication. This was in the early 1970s. I don’t know how true that is, but the professor of the physics lab that I worked in told me that and also mentioned that that cost was figured into the grant money from the sponsors of the research–at the time usually the Defense Department or National Science Foundation. Which raises another question regarding Cameron–who is sponsoring his “research”?
A doctorate in bible studies is silly enough, but it should be noted that Reisman’s doctorate is in communications, and her initial claim to fame was writing songs for the Captain Kangaroo TV program. Thereafter, she got herself a gig on the Ed Meese (attorney general during the Reagan Administration) anti-pornography commission. Thereafter she wrote a book about the Kinsey Institute. After the KI denied the allegations raised in the book, she sued the KI for libel. After her lawyer pulled out of the case, it fell apart, and the KI sued her for attorneys fees. It is highly unusual, but they won because her case was so frivolous. And she has refused to pay.
Reisman is a nut. Pure and simple.
Just a note: the “MassResistanceWatch” link links back to here. I believe you want
https://massresistancewatch.blogspot.com/
but I’ve never heard of the site before
Interestingly enough, no one ever seems to have commented on what I think is really the sickest single thing about Cameron’s “research.” It endangers children. By misrepresenting the nature of pedophilia and encouraging people to look at out gay men as potential child molesters, he deflects attention away from actual child molesters, leaving kids potentially more vulnerable.
Signed, the anon-posting tranny-dyke from the “why I believe the ex-gay movement will fail” thread who shall henceforeth be known as “Boo*” to avoid confusion.
*Although “Gompers” would have been a nice name too, don’t you think?
Boo, some of us have noted that more than a few of these polices of the anti-gay politicians and anti-gay ministries actually do hurt children
The policies don’t hurt actually gay people. They stigmatize gay people, but they hurt children.
Just one example https://www.lethimstay.com
Just how much clearer can one make it?
I meant in terms of Cameron specifically, the misinformation he is pushing puts children in more danger of being molested by diverting attention towards gay men and away from pedophiles. I haven’t seen anyone comment on that aspect of it, but maybe I just haven’t looked enough.
Actually, many prestigious peer-reviewed journals assess page charges for publication, and scientific grants usually take this expense into account. It’s their way of spreading the costs. I have spent a few years in my life writing for scientific journals, though in biology, and it’s standard procedure.
Peer review, of course, helps determine — though it never vetoes — whether a paper will get published, and page charges aren’t payed unless the paper is accepted by the editors. Ultimately, editors have the responsibility for what appears in peer reviewed journals. They can accept what peer reviewers say, or reject it.
Of course, neither editors nor peer reviewers always have their heads screwed on right, or they may have their own agendas to promote. Quite how a Cameron paper got past peer review is baffling, and doesn’t say much for the editors, or the reviewers.
I am a college professor and I teach about academic research. I am sorry, but I have never encountered a legit academic journal that charges per page. I do know scam journals and publications that do. No legit publication would ever charge an author to publish.
I used to work for a nonprofit that published a professional journal. We didn’t charge a reading fee, and peer reviewers could indeed reject a paper. In fact, the process was such that a reveiwer couldn’t NOT reject a paper that deserved rejection. And the editor had no power to run a paper that had been rejected.
Sorry, I was only reporting what I was told as a grad student in physics in the early 1970s. I did not mean to start a firestorm regarding page fees for peer-reviewed publications.
Things may have changed in the 35 years since then.
Also, when I was in grad school, I was told that even peer reviewed publications had something of a page charge for publication. This was in the early 1970s. I don’t know how true that is, but the professor of the physics lab that I worked in told me that and also mentioned that that cost was figured into the grant money from the sponsors of the research–at the time usually the Defense Department or National Science Foundation.
Well, I co-authored two papers with a professor in college, and both were accepted for publication using the peer-review process (one even got accepted for poster presentation at the American Psychological Association annual meeting, which was very cool). As I remember it, peer review was the be-all and end-all – if the reviewers didn’t all approve of your paper, you were dead in the water. And there was no charge for either publication, that I knew of at least. We were taught those journals who charged were in fact not legitimate, and should be avoided when doing any research.
CPT, I’m not going to debate it. It might be different for different peer-reviewed publications. My discipline was physics. I only know what I was told by the professor who ran the lab in which I did my grad studies. It might have been different for psychology.
Perhaps in your field they don’t, but in mine they certainly do. For example, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, one of the premier journals in the field, does assess page charges, and it specifies that the articles on its pages are technically advertisements. It will sometimes agree to waive them.
I can’t answer for Psychological Reports as I am not familiar with that journal, but the specific claim that “No legit publication would ever charge an author to publish” simply isn’t true. It’s quite common in the scientific world, even though not all journals assess such charges.
As for peer reviewers having the final word, that isn’t true either. Editors do. Peer reviewers are there to advise editors, not to determine content. I had a couple of back-to-back papers faintly praised by one reviewer as interesting but not thrilling, and damned to the depths by another. The editor decided to publish them anyway, because he liked them very much.
I suppose habits differ from one scientific field to another. I merely meant to say that page charges aren’t at all unusual, and do not in themselves mean that the paper is bunk. Of course, in Cameron’s case, it is bunk, but not because he paid page charges. I’ll drop this now, just wanted to make myself clear.
I have a feeling that journal practices vary widely from one scientific field to the next. They certainly vary considerably just within the fields of psychology and other social sciences.
In my looking through various journals, it quickly becomes apparent which ones are selective and vet their authors more carefully, and which ones are more, shall we say, “desperate” to fill their journals with content with each looming deadline.
And of all the ones I’ve looked at, Psychological Reports stands out truly as being the most bizarre, with its strange mixture of bona fide research reports, earnest but lesser-rate papers by grad students and rantings of veritable crackpots. Just one look and it becomes quickly apparent: They truly will publish anything.
In fact, I’m tempted to throw a paper together to seeing if they will publish it. I’ll leave it to others to decide if it’s third-rate or crackpot. 🙂
CPT, I’m not going to debate it. It might be different for different peer-reviewed publications. My discipline was physics. I only know what I was told by the professor who ran the lab in which I did my grad studies. It might have been different for psychology.
Didn’t mean to imply I was getting into a debate on it – just relating my experience.
I would not doubt that there are differences, especially in regards to peer review, depending on discipline. As you are often pointing out, raj, (at least I think it’s you), the social sciences are by definition “soft” and therefore the potential flaws in research are that much more common. When doing “hard” science, the methodologies and experimental controls are so carefully planned that the results tend to be much more concrete and less open to interpretation. That is not the case for social sciences, which often rely on “natural experiments” for data.
That being said, whatever one believes about peer review, there are accepted standards for performing research that Cameron simply does not follow. It is interesting that the Globe pointed out the CDC itself could not replicate his alleged findings that gays were more likely to be criminals than straights – particularly when they had never done the study he claimed they suppressed. Given Cameron’s history of deliberate misinterpretations of others’ data (including one infamous example in which he “re-analyzed” another researcher’s work, without access to her raw data, just based on her published findings!) and shoddy, if not downright deliberately biased, “research” methods, it is not surprising that no one else can figure out how he comes to his conclusions.
I also applaud the Globe for acknowledging the problems that appearing “fair and balanced” can cause for some media outlets. When groups like the American College of Pediatrics exist solely to provide a biased counter-argument to hard science, it is incumbent upon the media to do their homework and determine if such groups should be referenced.
I would point out that Cameron’s “findings” are not psychological in nature. He claims statistical results.
While I do not doubt that the anti/ex-gay activists can find other psychologists who may agree with Cameron’s papers, I would find it extremely unlikely that there is a solitary statistician who would support his claims.
Take, for example, the notion that gay people commit higher than average incidences of child molestation. To come up with this, he uses a formula as follows
Total incidences of same-sex molestation / total gay identified people
To skew the ratio as much as possible, he defines same-sex molestation to include all incidences even those that clearly are by individuals that have no adult same-sex drive. To minimize the denominator – thus increasing the ratio – he defines the total gay population to include only those who publicly self-identify as gay persons. In effect, the majority of those in the first category are excluded from the second.
Basically, this has all the logic of saying “the percentage of apples that are oranges is…”
While this might slip by a psychologist, no statistician could help but giggle. (No insult to the psych field, it’s just different training).
My school uses Proquest and EbscoHost for journals. I found out a few things:
1)The Journal of Biological Chemistry is a for-profit journal. That does not mean that it does not have valid info, but neither service will include the Journal in the database because of the profit status.
2)Nonprofit journals are more respected than for-profit. They are considered the standard.
3) Psychological Reports is also not in the system.
4) For-profit journals have advertisements. Nonprofit do not except for books within the field. Advertisements sully the research–that is why journals are supposed to be nonprofit.
The Journal of Biological Chemistry may be fine for those in the field; however, from an overall academic viewpoint, any time money for profit is part of the research, that research is viewed with a very skeptical eye. If those in Biological Chem think it is fine, so be it, but I suspect that most with the APA do not respect Psychological Reports. Not only that, the APA standard states clearly that nonprofits should be used in research only.
To use profits would be like getting info from the Dr. Atkins Journal about the Dr. Atkins diet.
Timothy wrote:
Think again! I can name one — Kirk Cameron, his son, who often works on these pieces.Perhaps you mean “a solitary statistician WITHOUT a vested interest in the results” 🙂
grantdale,
Stupid me, how could I have slipped up on that?
🙂
Aaron, you are not a biologist, so please don’t presume to know which journals are considered prestigious and which not.
A large proportion of scientific journals are published by for-profit publishers. Perhaps the most famous of the for-profit publishers is Nature Publishing Co., publisher of the weekly Nature (which published the famous Watson and Crick paper 50+ years ago, and is still one of the “journals of record” of science). J. Biol. Chem. may also be for-profit, and it is considered one of the top in its specialty. If you can’t get your biochemistry paper into Nature or Science (non-profit), which have limited space for each specialty and cover Astronomy to Zoology, JBC is one of the two or three next most prestigious choices.
Journals published by scientific societies are non-profit (because their societies are) and prestige varies. Cancer Research (Am Assoc Cancer Research, nonprofit, has submission charge as well as page charge) is better in its specialty than any of the subspecialty journals published by the Amer. Medical Assocn. are in their subspecialties.
I have no idea how the Cameron journal rates, because psychology isn’t even remotely my field, but his being kicked out of professional associations is both unusual and telling.
The vast majority of journals are for profit, including some very prestigous ones. The Lancet even accepts advertising.
Dr. Herek has an excellent discussion of what constitutes prestige in a scientific journal.
https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_journals.html
NancyPPerhaps to draw this all to a close — please 🙂 — Gregory Herek at UCDavishas already done the work for you. This is his professional field.
Argh! Done in by Quickdraw McJim.
Nancy, I never said I was a biologist, and if you read my comments, I said that maybe in the field it may be respected. However, I am a professor who teaches grad students specifically on how to do research. That is my job. All I told you was Proquest and EbscoHosts position on forprofit journals.
If you wish to use them, so be it, but they are not respected generally.
If you read the site you posted, this is what it says:
“Psychological Reports is also different from the vast majority of psychology and social science journals in that it requires contributing authors to pay a fee (in 1996, $27.50 per page for longer articles). The practice of charging a per-page fee or requiring purchase of preprinted copies of the article is rare in psychological and social science journals. Such per-page fees are not charged by the high-prestige psychology journals (e.g., those published by the American Psychological Association).” It states specifically that this is not something is generally acceptable. I don’t know why you put that link if it just backs up what I said.
Finally, as someone who has also run a journal and participated in peer review, I don’t know any legit journal that makes any money off of what they do.
Aaron
Well, obviously you aren’t a biochemist, but the Journal of Biological Chemistry is one of the principle ( and heaviest) journals in the field. Submitted papers undergo a review process, and you cannot publish in it simply by paying for it. The researchers aren’t publishing or researching for profit; they are defraying the costs of publication.
All scientific papers should be read with a skeptical eye. That is what science is about. Even if a paper runs through the review and editorial gauntlet, that doesn’t mean it is god’s own truth. That is true of papers published in journals that do not assess page charges… probably more so, because they can’t afford the editorial staff to assess the quality.
And when I suggest that some journals can’t afford the staff to assess the quality, I mean the quality of the submitted paper, and the quality of the reviewers. I know I said I wouldn’t post more on this, but this is the reality. When people claim that journals that assess page charges are worthless, it has to be pointed out that this isn’t true. What makes them worthy or worthless is whether their editors and reviewers are competent.
The social sciences are indeed particularly soft in these areas. Alan Sokal’s publication of a spoof of post-modernism in Social Text is an entertaining example: the review and editorial process completely failed.
It may be that Psychological Reports is as useless a journal as Social Text. I don’t know, as I have never read it. But to claim that assessment of page charges in itself makes a paper fraudulent or worthy of enhanced skepticism is false.
While I never said these journals are fraudulent, any time money is involved, one has to enhance skepticism. I agree one should always question the article regardless. The journals that Proquest deals with generally do not allow any of the members, authors, or reviewers to be associated with money regarding the article. In fact, most journals I am aware of actually have nonprofit section that the rest of the body is not allowed to be involved with. It is to keep special interests out. Again, I do not know the journal intimitately mentioned, and perhaps members of the field will accept it as fine, but as someone who teaches it (and I have taught the sciences for research), I am not aware of any journals that are acceptable for research with pay-per-page. I am not the only one who thinks this either–all my professors when I was in postgrad thought the same thing. I can understand defraying the costs of publication, but most journals are going to use nonprofits and charitible contributions to do that. But maybe there aren’t enough biological chemists for an organization that raises money independently.
Also, let me mention that when students look at my university library for journals, the librarians also tell them that if there is advertising (other than books) or any type of money involved, the students can’t use them. This is university wide. The hing is, maybe it is academia that is wrong here, but this is pretty standard across the board. Again, there may be exceptions.
BTW Nature is not considered academic at my school because it is available to the general public for sale. It is not a very well respected magazine (our school lists it under magazine) for research at my school.
Also, about Nature, the magazine is too varied for it to be considered a journal. It covers all different areas of science. In my field, Nature is equivilant to Discovery. Now that is not to say the articles are not good. Many of the articles actually might be published in another journal and then taken to Nature or Discovery. Nature also has pictures, which is not considered academic generally.
Nature is somewhat like Scientific American, but with a more biological bent.
Many publications that would be considered “journals” are published by professional associations. IEEE and ACM publish a number of journals. Physical Review is published by a physicists association (forget the name)
Oddly, Springer Verlag in Germany publishes a number of excellent works in obscure areas of math and physics, and also the trashy tabloid Das Bild. The dichotomy is hilarious.
Just to add, specifically about Psychological Reports – that I very well remember as a journal that was NOT to be used for any research when I was a psych major in college. Again this is 20 years ago, but I have always discounted anything they print.
More importantly, when judging the quality of “research” like Cameron’s, the lack of reliability of his results is also telling. There is no corroboration of his work by any other researcher publishing in any peer-reviewed journals. The very fact that a huge proportion of the anti-gay “facts” promoted by the pseudo-Christian right are either directly from Cameron or derived from his work is a sign that the work is biased. If other researchers cannot back up your work, then there is a HUGE flaw in your methodology that makes your results meaningless.
My, my, my… touchy tempers here.
As I said, Lancet, which is one of the more respected journals in medicine, carries advertising. As Raj pointed out, many journals are published by for profit companies. At least in psychology and medicine, this does not seem to be a barrier.
However, charging authors a fee in order to be published is the specific practice that makes Psychological Reports stand out in the fields of psychology and medicine. It places the journal in the position of making money based on the number of articles published, regardless of its quality or merit. And that, I think is the crux of the problem with that journal.
I imagine psych departments across the country regularly prohibit students from quoting from Psychological Reports. At least I hope so.
Any time a for-profit journal charges money from its authors, it places itself into a conflict of interest situation. I don’t know how many non-profit journals do it, but knowing how they often struggle to get by, I would look carefully at their work in a similar light, particularly if they have a low rejection rate.
I believe we have the focus backwards here.
We seem to be challenging the credibility of Cameron based on the quality of the journal.
Actually the converse is true. The credibility of Psychological Reports is damaged by the quality of Cameron.
It is a given that Cameron’s work is shoddy. However, many individuals are shoddy in their work. Cameron’s went beyond shoddy to deliberate distortion. And that caused him to be expelled from his professional organizations.
So, regardless of whether or not they are peer-reviewed or if they charge the author or if they accept advertising…. any journal that publishes Cameron loses credibility.
Psychological Reports is a disreputable journal. Not neccessarily because of their review or financial practices. But because they print disreputable reports.
Aaron
I pointed a very important one out: J. Biol. Chem. It’s one of the flagships of biochemical publication. If you persist in being “unaware” of it, it’s your problem.
Since Nature, like its American sibling Science, is one of the two premier scientific publications in the world whom scientists would give their eye teeth to be published in, what sort of an “academic” institution are you in that it devalues scholarship so much? A “Liberal Arts” college?
There is nothing wrong with page charges. Scientific journals are expensive to produce, if they are worth anything at all. If every9one pays them, then everyone is in the same boat.
Timothy
I agree. When Psychological Reports agreed to publish Cameron’s paper, they lost credibility just as Social Text did when they agreed to publish Alan Sokal’s. Of course, I know nothing whatever of the history or review policy of PR, so I can’t say whether this lapse is comon or not. Even Nature has had a history of publishing some very dodgy research — such as Benvenuto’s paper on homeopathy, which was later discredited.
There is a difference between being pioneering and being a total idiot. Some editors just miss the mark occasionally.
Jim Burroway
Not really. Page charges aren’t going to account for a major proportion of a journal’s expenses. They may amount to as much as $50-$100 a page (JBC is currently $75), but most papers are less than 10 pages long, and volumes frequently contain fewer than two or three dozen papers. The income from the scientific contributors is negligible.
It simply defrays some of the costs, and as I pointed out before, the JBC is willing to waive page charges upon application. I rather get the impression page charges exist to discourage frivolous submissions.
As for Psychological Reports, for all I know you may be right about their poor quality. I’ll leave that for experts in psychology to determine.
Lesz, since you like to resort to ad hominems, let me point out that my standards are just higher than yours. You are willing to use lesser materials because they support what you want. That is fine, but just a brief look online would tell you that Nature and Scientific American are not fully respected “journals”. They are good magazines. My suggestion is that you look for criteria online regarding scholarly journals. One, journals are sober and have sober covers. Nature does not. Journals do not use pictures. Nature does. Journals are not available to the general public–they are for experts in the fields (like trade mags). Nature is sold on the stands at the local Barnes and Nobles. Journals have very limited scope. Nature does not. Journals do not sell per page. Nature does.
You asked where I worked–I work for the Cal State University system and I am a very respected professor–that is why I teach research. I do not know your credentials, and you might use these lesser materials fine. But as I pointed out my criteria is higher. I am sorry that that does not fit into your worldview, but you seem to have very little criteria other than respect for journals. As I stated over and over, Nature is a good magazine, but it is not a journal. Is it not wise to get away from the money aspect in terms of scholarly research? It avoids conflict of interest. You seem to think conflict of interest is fine in research, but it is not.
You will not accept my viewpoint, and I will not accept yours. Let’s leave it at that.
I actually think this brings up a bigger issue that has been bugging me for a long time. I think that the end of the Untied States will not come from gay marriage, lack of Christian heritiage, etc. The US will fall because of our view of science. We are losing respect in the world community because we are allowing personal belief to influence our science. We are engaging pseudo-science. When Bush believes that intelligent design should be taught as equal to evolution, the US is failing. Our science is being taken over by those more qualified outside of the US. This debate we are having shows that people are willing to use lesser research and scholarship for science. If we lose the science scholarship, can the US continue to function as a part of respected world community?
THis debate reminds me of something that happened in the classroom about two weeks ago. A student in one of my general ed classes was writing about the death penalty. He had a stat that stated that out of every 7 murders 1 murder is deterred. THe stat was ridiculous, so I questioned him about it. He said that it came from an expert. I asked about methodology, expertise, logic, etc. The student just said, “But it supports my belief that the death penalty is a good thing. I don’t care if it is factual–it supports my belief.”
Aaron
We will have to disagree. I’ll stick with respect for genuine science, as opposed to arrogant contempt for it.
Lesz…
You should stop by a university library and pick up a copy of Psychological Reports. You’d get a kick out of it.
It is in small format (somewhat larger than a Reader’s Digest), which forces articles to run for at least twice as many pages as they would in a normal journal(hence a higher cost).
Furthermore, each issue is packed with several score of articles — 50, 80, perhaps more. There are so many articles that they routinely print issues in two or three parts, each one containing maybe fifty articles or so. They literally publish everything, which is the point I’m getting at.
Also, it is strictly paid content. No editorials, no letters to the editor, no errata, nothing. If you want to publish a letter in response to something someone else published, you have to pay the fee just like everybody else.
And as for “peer reviews”, they are perfunctory at best, so that doesn’t cost much either. The binding is cheap, the paper is cheap, it is all done on the cheap. So yes, they make money off of charging for publication in addition to the subscription price.
Like I said, I could probably get published!
Aaron at August 3, 2005 05:15 PM
Let’s distinguish Professional journals exist to publish original research.
I’m not sure about Nature, but SciAm is not intended to publish original research. It is intended to explain current scientific thinking to a mass audience–the “laity.”
I disagree with the contention that professional journals are not available to the general public. I could get a subscription to Physical Review (the professional journal in physics) today, if I wanted, but. But it would be very expensive. I actually have a subscription to Proceedings of IEEE and IEEE Spectrum, BTW, but they are less expensive. (Spectrum is like SciAm, but with a more limited focus.)
BTW, IEEE is Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
Also, it is my understanding that Cameron was kicked out of his professional association for complaints that he was mischaracterizing research that had been conducted by original researchers. His shoddy research methodology may have entered into it, but that was secondary.
I asked a friend of mine, who is on his second doctorate and has published and read journals in various fields from physics to medicine to bio-materials. He concurred that the majority of journals do not charge per page (excepting the inclusion of colour images), although a minority do. Indeed, one would assume that journals would more properly re-coup costs from publishing rather than by charging submitters.
He also noted that reviewers are key to having your journal published in his fields and have veto over publication.
I believe we’re getting a bit far afield here. The issue is not whether a journal assesses a per-page charge. The issue is whether what is published is reliable. Merely because something has been published does not mean that it is reliable. An example from my scientific specialty: the “cold-fusion” people got a paper published somewhere, but it was a crock.