{"id":5238,"date":"2017-05-25T22:15:46","date_gmt":"2017-05-25T21:15:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.gspellchecker.com\/?p=5238"},"modified":"2017-05-28T09:23:40","modified_gmt":"2017-05-28T08:23:40","slug":"the-conceptual-penis-and-its-pay-to-publish-critics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.gspellchecker.com\/2017\/05\/the-conceptual-penis-and-its-pay-to-publish-critics\/","title":{"rendered":"The ‘Conceptual Penis’ and Its ‘Pay-To-Publish’ Critics"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"image\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

CORRECTIONS\/UPDATES \u2013 28th May 2017<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

It appears Ketan Joshi<\/strong> is a more common name than I knew, and as a result this blog was originally published with reference to the wrong Ketan Joshi\u2019s papers. I have now corrected this and <\/em>apologised<\/em><\/a> for the mixup.<\/em><\/p>\n

Phil Torres<\/strong> has contacted me by email: \u201cI can honestly affirm that I have never paid to publish an article\u201d. He is working on a follow-up article which I shall link to here<\/strong> when it is published.<\/em><\/p>\n

As many of you would have noticed, Drs. Lindsay and Boghossian\u2019s hoax article about the \u2018conceptual penis<\/a>\u2019 caused a considerable amount of controversy to say the least.<\/p>\n

Intended as a hoax in the style of Sokal<\/a>, some took the paper for a great work of satire<\/a>, and as if to demonstrate its effectiveness, others managed to find genuine insight<\/a> within the paper\u2019s word salad. This is especially surprising when you consider the authors of the paper said this:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cAfter completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn\u2019t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A few people (PZ Myers<\/a>, Ketan Joshi<\/a>, Phil Torres<\/a> who writes as Philippe Verdoux, and Amanda Marcotte<\/a>) were particularly vocal about the pay-to-publish aspect of their hoax. They called Lindsay and Boghossian\u2019s ethics into question, and denounced pay-to-publish model of journals.<\/p>\n

The general implication was that Lindsay and Boghossian had simply paid their way into publication rather than exposing the post-modern sensibilities found within this particular field of study. Boghossian and Lindsay claim they did not pay to have their article published, however the response to it made me wonder if any of their critics had – and if so, whether they would consider that detail grounds for dismissal of their own work.<\/p>\n

I took a look at the journals where PZ Myers, Ketan Joshi, Phil Torres (Philippe Verdoux), and Amanda Marcotte published to see if their paper had ever appeared in pay-to-publish journals. While we do not know the details of how much they paid to have their articles published, or even if they paid at all, below is a list of the journals and their fees where their articles have appeared.<\/p>\n

To be clear: I do not know if they (or someone on their behalf) paid publication fees or not. Here is my direct question to these individuals: \u201cHave you ever paid, or had anyone pay on your behalf, a fee for publishing a paper or papers?\u201d<\/p>\n

PZ Myers<\/b><\/h5>\n
Journal of Neuroscience<\/b><\/h5>\n

Fee: $1,260 for members and $1,890 for nonmembers<\/u><\/a><\/p>\n

PZ\u2019s articles:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Growth cone dynamics during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone <\/u><\/a><\/p>\n

Development and Axonal Outgrowth of Identified Motoneurons in the Zebrafish<\/u><\/a><\/p>\n

Cell-cell interactions during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone in the embryonic grasshopper<\/u><\/a><\/p>\n

Ketan Joshi<\/b><\/h5>\n

 <\/p>\n

Frontiers in Public Health<\/b><\/h5>\n

Fee: A Type Articles $1,900, B Type Articles $875, C Type Articles $450, D Type Articles: Free<\/a><\/p>\n

Joshi\u2019s article: Fomenting sickness: nocebo priming of residents about expected wind turbine health harms<\/a><\/font><\/h5>\n
 <\/h5>\n
Phil Torres (Philippe Verdoux)<\/b><\/h5>\n
Metaphilosophy<\/b><\/h5>\n

Fee: $2500<\/u><\/a><\/p>\n

Verdoux\u2019 article: <\/b>Emerging Technologies and the Future of Philosophy<\/u><\/a><\/p>\n

Foresight<\/b><\/p>\n

Fee: $2400<\/u><\/a><\/p>\n

Verdoux\u2019 article: Technology and our epistemic situation: what ought our priorities to be?<\/u><\/a><\/p>\n

Amanda Marcotte<\/h5>\n
Journal of School Psychology<\/h5>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fee: $1800<\/u><\/a><\/p>\n

Marcotte\u2019s article: Incremental and predictive utility of formative assessment methods of reading comprehension <\/u><\/a><\/p>\n

I am eagerly awaiting their responses so that it may bring clarity to this issue of pay-to-publish journals and their credibility.<\/p>\n

Stephen Knight is host of The #GSPodcast. You can listen to The Godless Spellchecker Podcast <\/em><\/strong>here<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, and support it by becoming a patron <\/em><\/strong>here<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Share This<\/h3>
  • Tweet<\/a><\/li>
  • <\/div><\/li>
  • Email<\/span><\/a><\/li>
  • Share on Tumblr<\/a><\/li>