skip to Main Content

How to spot a bad journal

I get solicitations all the time to post articles, and I just file them. There are journals that desperately need suckers to Pay let them publish their work, and they will accept anything. We call them predatory journals, but I have a caveat about it: The whole establishment science publishing system is predatory, taking the output of federally funded scientists and charging them to publish. But some lack discrimination and prestige more than others, and have absurdly lower standards.

Dan Phelps was invited to publish in the International Journal of Paleobiology & Paleontology, which certainly sounds like Serious Science, but he glanced at their table of contents and could tell it was a dump. Did you notice anything funny about it?

When accused of being a predatory newspaper, they have a curious response.

Thank you for your response, We would like to inform you that ours is not a predatory journal. We have received the ISSN which is provided in our previous email. For your convenience, we provide our journal link where you can find complete information about our journal and editorial board members. Link: https://medwinpublishers.com/IJPBP/index.php Please check back if you have any questions. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Kind Regards, Jackie Crystal Deputy Editor

They can’t be a predatory newspaper, they have an ISSN! The international standard serial number simply means that they have registered with an organization that assigns unique identification numbers to periodicals, magazines, newspapers and even blogs (a bit expensive without great benefits, we don’t don’t have any here), and the organization itself says, “it does not guarantee the quality or validity of the content”.

Some of these titles are dead giveaways, though, and I felt like digging into them a bit. Here’s a fun one, proving that dinosaurs are distant ancestors of humans – The East Asian evolutionary location that definitively disproves the “Out of Africa” ​​theory. The title alone tells you that this is nonsense, and that there was no peer review, and that the journal will publish anything.

It was written by Florent Pirot, who is an independent researcher — that means he is not a professional employed by any relevant institution. That’s fine, amateur scientists are welcome, but all you have to do is read the summary to see there’s no substance here.

The study of evolution is covered in heated debate, and every new fossil brought back from ground studies can spark a debate, with the ever-present risk of creative artists seeking fame and building dangerously similar creatures from scratch. There is, however, a very significant, and simple, way to demonstrate that the kinship of humans is not found in the Jurassic mice which are presented as the founding mammals in the mainstream theory but in the large dinosaurs which escaped the – 65 MY disasters have slowly evolved into standing mammals and that our genes are more related to these mammals. The existing literature from PNAS and Science is brought together with the author’s analysis to prove this point.

It doesn’t say anything. He says in clunky English that humans are descended from dinosaurs that escaped KT extinction, but he doesn’t say what he’s going to do in this article. That’s just as well; it’s going to be an exercise in pareidolia and random leaps of logic. For instance:

In Central Asia and Mongolia, finds of Nemegtosaurus from the Nemegt Basin show kinship with aurochs, based on the skull, and suggest a more distant relationship with oreodonts. The eyes of the skull (in the model presented at the Museum of Evolution of the Polish Academy of Sciences) are below two circular areas which were obviously provided with horns which were perhaps renewed every year, as in deer today. The prominence of the jaws suggests a connection with Theropithecus gelada.

This is Nemegtosaurus:

Here is an aurochs:

Does anyone want to tell me where they show “parenthood”? Because this is not the case with Mr. Pirot.

This, by the way, is Theropithecus gelada, the gelada baboon. I don’t see anything on the jaws of baboons, aurochs, and dinosaurs that would suggest a connection, other than the general connection that they all have jaws.

Then he accesses his “data”. This, for example, is a The beak of Parasaurolophus remains embedded in the crystallized igneous rock. Photo taken in Valbonne, from a local supply of rocks.

No it is not.

Another “fossil” Theropitecus Gelada skull also cast in magma, from same rock supply as above, estimated 10–12 MY:

No, it’s not a baboon skull.

Read further and you’ll find that Florent Pirot is an idiot who walks around his backyard in Valbonne, France, staring at random rocks and imagining similarities to various species he’s read about, linking them in patterns of imaginary descendants that he cannot justify.

It’s an Ed Conrad or a French Roger Spurr! He is one of them because he managed to publish a few articles about his bizarre ideas in a garbage newspaper.

Yes, more than one. Here is another one that will amuse you: The Holy Wolf of Col Du Fam, A Smilodon Caught in a Lava Bubble. He has lots of photos of rocks that he imagines to be spectacular fossils, like this one from a tooth.

Ha ha, you may laugh, but keep in mind that he’s a delusional lunatic who falls prey to a newspaper that charges substantial page fees (I don’t know what this one charges, but usually c is on the order of hundreds of dollars) to print his crazy ideas. If you can be outraged that televangelists are scamming donations from the poor to build their media empires, you have to admit it’s exactly the sameby simply replacing Science for Jesus.

The other thing that should annoy you is that a creationist wanker like Matt Powell will pick it up and wander around telling people that these stupid devils believe dinosaurs evolved from baboons to humans when no, we don’t. we don’t. A stupid fool from the South of France thinks so, and a fraudulent newspaper parasitizes it.

Back To Top