I am long retired (2008) In the field of cardiology I am a pariah, there is an embargo on my publishing in major journals. I have therefore been forced to go to obscure journals where the referees are not from the cartel that ban me. J Cardiol Cardiovasc Med. and J. Integr. Cardiol. I have so far with these journals persuaded them to accept only cost covering fees, i.e. reduced from over £2000 to around £500. It is embarrassing to do this and with 5 papers already done this way in last 2-3 years hurts my measly pension. I now have a sixth to submit and it is again ground breaking and against the establishment's dogma, the reason for the embargo. I have tried various funding agencies but there are none I can find to get funding of anysort, e.g. I need an updated Mac.

  • 11
    Why would people want to fund "a pariah"? Why are your ideas rejected?
    – Buffy
    Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 13:11
  • 4
    What are you publishing if you're retired?
    – user133933
    Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 15:47
  • 5
    The "Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine" is published by Heighten Science Publications Corporation. The "Journal of Integrative Cardiology" is published by Open Access Text. Both publishers are in Beall's List of potential predatory publishers.
    – JRN
    Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 16:18
  • 3
    Based on their researchgate profile their ideas are related to their project: "To convince the world that the glyceride industry is basis of thhe main food allergies." (maybe @Buffy) You also say you were an STO at cambridge, what does STO stand for? Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 16:34
  • 2
    @NAMcMahon in Cambridge-ese, "UTO" is "University Teaching Officer", which is a catch-all term for a Professor, Reader, Senior Lecturer, or Lecturer (in the traditional British sense of the word "Lecturer"), and "CTO" is "College Teaching Officer", which is a job quite similar to the American meaning of the word "Lecturer", but I've not encountered "STO" before. Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 16:50

2 Answers 2


The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) currently lists 1,845 open access journals in the field of Medicine that do not charge any publication fees.

You could use the advanced query functions to the left to narrow down your discipline (e.g. to Internal Medicine), and browse through the list of journals to find some that may be suitable to you. That way you would not need any funding at all.

  • 1
    I bookmarked the question because of this answer.
    – Nobody
    Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 14:45
  • @scaaahu: you could also bookmark the link!
    – user111388
    Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 19:40

Suggestion 1: I notice you've spent most of your career at the University of Cambridge. Are you a member of the Cambridge Philosophical Society? Providing financial support to a member in this situation sounds like the sort of thing they might consider to be within their remit (assuming that they don't know of some good reason why you really should be a pariah).

Suggestion 2: I believe you first expressed the view that a cartel of referees was rejecting your papers from mainstream journals for scientifically unsound reasons c. 2007. Even assuming that you were completely right about that at the time, are you sure the cartel is still operating after all these years?

  • 6
    As per the comment on the question, the journals publishing the original poster's work are considered predatory, so the Cambridge Philosophical society (and other organisations) might not want to fund these publications for this reason. Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 16:43
  • 3
    @NAMcMahon Yes, that's possible, although I think it's fair to say that the same features of those journals that raise the suspicion that they're predatory also make them uniquely suited to the situation OP claims to face. Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 17:10
  • 4
    The issue is if predatory journals are creating financial hardships by offering to publish invalid or incomplete work, leading to the belief in the author that the work should be published. I'd be leaning towards the cartels referred to by OP being related to their stated goal of: "To convince the world that the glyceride industry is basis of thhe main food allergies." OP's claim that "[their next paper] is again groundbreaking" also raises flags for me, especially since the 6 papers they appear to be referring to are single author papers. Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 19:35
  • 1
    @NAMcMahon I hadn't thought of that particular risk of exploitation, so thanks for pointing it out. The etiology of allergies is not the only issue on which OP has rather unusual views. Nevertheless, although I'm acutely aware that in some disciplines, there's a problem with people who try to go 'against the establishment's dogma' without bothering to address the awkward fact that the "establishment's dogma" is supported by overwhelming evidence, I'm trying hard not to assume that that's what OP is doing. Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 20:48
  • 2
    "Try reading my recent work on cardiology and form your own opinion", that is a terrible suggestion. If this is research worth publishing then I don't have the expertise to evaluate that. My background is quantum information theory, so if you did manage to convince me to read your work, and I happen to be convinced that its a meaningful contribution, my word is still worthless to you/anyone else. In fact it might be worth less than nothing since in the case that your science is unsound, you have additional (unqualified) people saying its right, making it harder to discover the weaknesses. Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 22:53

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .