Timeline for Is it dishonest to not list papers published in predatory journals when e.g. applying for a job?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2023 at 15:06 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | " so from that perspective including it in a list of other papers which are published in good journals could be seen as dishonest. " It would only be dishonest if it were presented as a list of papers in good journals. If it is just a list of publications, then it is factually correct and honest. If it were a "full publication list" it would be dishonest to exclude it. | |
| Jul 25, 2023 at 15:02 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | This isn't to say peer review is useless, it isn't. It's main purpose is the improvement of the paper by constructive criticism, not deciding whether it is worth publishing. It is better than no peer review, but it is only the opinion of a couple of people who may or may not have genuine expertise on the topic. I've written a fair few comments papers on bad papers in good journals, and that has rather tempered my expectations with regard to our judgement of whether papers are worth publishing. | |
| Jul 25, 2023 at 14:59 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | @llama peer review is an absolutely minimal indication of quality. There are plenty of obviously wrong papers in top quality journals where peer review has failed. There is one true test of quality - post publication acceptance (and use) by the research community - citations is one measure of that. There are plenty of really good publications on ArXiV with lots of citations that have never been through peer review. It is the contents of the paper that matter, not the journal. A paper in a predatory journal that has had impact is better than a Nature paper that has been ignored. | |
| Jul 25, 2023 at 13:36 | comment | added | llama | @DikranMarsupial on the other hand, a paper in a predatory journal with no meaningful standard of peer review has not been judged to be worthy of publication in the same manner that one in a proper journal has, and so from that perspective including it in a list of other papers which are published in good journals could be seen as dishonest. In that sense it's on par with a preprint which has not been accepted by a journal, in my opinion. | |
| Jul 24, 2023 at 14:56 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | "From a utilitarian perspective, having published in a predatory journal is not relevant to an employer " in your opinion (or in this case for your measure of utility). The Golden rule means we need to consider the employers likely views on utility, not ours, which will be highly uncertain. Unfortunately that is why ethical matters generally can't be legislated. | |
| Jul 24, 2023 at 14:54 | comment | added | Dikran Marsupial | "But including the journal in your list would indicate that you believe it to be a valid publication, which would be contrary to the truth" I disagree. It is the contents of the paper that determine whether it is a valid publication, not where it was published. | |
| Jul 24, 2023 at 14:46 | comment | added | Kimball | Wait, why does the receiver have a right to know "Did you just cut me off in the parking lot?"? (I'm assuming you mean this as a matter of intention, not action.) | |
| Jul 24, 2023 at 8:47 | history | edited | Sursula | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 24, 2023 at 8:43 | history | answered | Thomas Schwarz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |