pol100gk said:
I think the scientists in the respective disciplines know which journals are reputable and which are not.
Apr 30, 2024 at 4:17pm
Apr 30, 2024 at 2:15pm
FULL TIME/LONG TERM/NANNY/BABYSITTER/HOUSEKEEPER/MOTHER’S HELPER
Apr 30, 2024 at 11:47am
Our amazing driving nanny is available for work.
Apr 28, 2024 at 8:05am
(No Fees) Hire A Baby Nurse Here for Your New Borns! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
(NO FEES) Hire A Fresh Energetic Nanny/ Housekeeper Here ! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
(NO Fees) Hire Housekeepers Here! ( 732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
KF503 FT Live In or Live Out Nanny for 1 Infant (May Start)
Apr 29, 2024 at 9:15pm
PF505 FT Companion for 16 Year Old Boy (ASAP Start)
Apr 29, 2024 at 12:05pm
Part Time help for special needs young adult
Apr 27, 2024 at 4:43pm
REVO luggage $100
More info
This article is one of several in a similar vein about the darker side of science publishing.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/journals_and_publication_pollution_denialism-154566
With the never-ending pressure at universities on professors to publish and the willingness of publishing houses to create journals without rigorous peer review, the scientific community does itself a disservice and creates the platform for the far right wing to attack science (global warming, vaccines, evolution, use of tobacco and cancer, and many other issues) and create a dilemma for non-scientists who have to make some decisions like whether to vaccinate a child, to support high cigarette taxes, to go solar power, to support carbon taxes and so on.
At the end of the article there are links to similar articles.