http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/con ... r-studies/
Oder um es runter zu brechen: Die Tatsache dass es pay-to-publish ist, entschuldigt nicht zur Gänze den ausgehebelten Peer Review Prozess, in dem das Schriftstück ja so gelobt wurde. Heißt, sofern das Journal nicht den ganzen Peer-Review-Prozess an sich gefälscht hat um an das Geld zu kommen, sitzen da draußen tatsächlich Menschen auf akademischen Lehrstühlen, die dieses Ding ernsthaft gut fanden und sogar einen Katalog mit Änderungsvorschlägen zurückgesandt haben.“The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” underwent a blind peer-review process and yet was accepted for publication. This needs serious explaining. Part of the fault may fall on the open-access, pay-to-publish model, but the rest falls on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as “gender studies.” As we see it, gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious housecleaning.
To repeat a critical point, this paper was published in a social science journal that was recommended to us as reputable by a supposedly reliable academic source. Cogent Social Sciences has the trappings of a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. There is no way around the fact that the publication of this paper in such a journal must point to some problem with the current state of academic publishing. The components of the problem are, it seems, reducible to just two: academic misfeasance arising from pay-to-publish, open-access financial decision-making; and unconscionable pseudo-academic inbreeding contaminating, if not defining, the postmodernist theory-based social sciences. “
Und nur mal am Rande: Ich arbeite im naturwissenschaftlichen Betrieb und habe selbst schon veröffentlicht. Aber belehre mich ruhig weiter, wie es da so zugeht.
