Research from the esteemed Arthur Vandelay Urological Research Institute

April 6, 2017 6:55 AM

"John McCool is neither a researcher nor a urologist. When received an unsolicited invitation to submit a paper to an open-access urology journal, however, he just couldn’t resist. He is the owner of a freelance scientific editing company, and has long been concerned about so-called predatory journals, which often publish sub-par papers as long as authors pay. And he loves the TV show “Seinfeld.”" Like many others before him, McCool decided to punk the journal by submitting a fake paper."

Actual paper available here.

posted by ssmug (16 comments total)

Talk about taking the piss....
posted by jonmc at 7:12 AM on April 6, 2017 [9 favorites]

Holy crap, the references:

1. Reimenschneider J, van Nostrand M, Costanza GL (2016) Incidence of uromycitisis poisoning in the United States, 2015: not a laughing matter. J Adv Urol 15: 323-334.

2. Sacamano R, Ramirez C, Sidaredes S, Romanowski FD (2012) Uromycitisis poisoning leading to acute renal failure. Mex J Urol 45: 34-41.

3. Steinbrenner G, Fisk W, Merman FF, Peterman J, Bhatt B, et al. (1975) Antibacterial drugs to treat acute renal failure: identification and discussion of “uromycitisis.” Lancet Urol 8: 211-220.

4. Whatley T, Leo U, Nicodemo L, Berg A, Haffler E, et al. (1994) Psychological effects of uromycitisis. Can J Ab Psychol 76: 878-896.

5. Roydlick E, Chiles J, Bison D, Pennypacker HE, Corrochio E (1996) “Don’t blame the victim”: uromycitisis in American life. Am J Ab Behav Psychol 45: 434-442.

6. Davola J, Mischke SE (2014) New public urination passes approved for uromycitisis sufferers. New York Times, USA.
posted by zarq at 7:25 AM on April 6, 2017 [8 favorites]

If only they had done proper pee-r review...
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:34 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]

What? No reference from Drs. Howard M, Fine L, Howard C?
posted by Thorzdad at 7:44 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]

From the author of, "Repeated exposure to toxic envelope glue resulting in death: a case report"
posted by officer_fred at 8:03 AM on April 6, 2017 [8 favorites]

There is a disturbing lack of Seinfeld awareness in our culture recently.
posted by mantecol at 8:26 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]

Boy that link to http://medcrave-is-not-predatory-publisher.blogspot.com is something else. "If there is an online encyclopedia of science, it is MedCrave. There are no second thoughts about its authenticity." Clearly that's a journal of quality. i wonder how many of the hundreds of editors-in-chief know their name and badly distorted photo is being used by the business?

There's a zillion shitty journals out there with terrible standards. What's particularly upsetting is when a big name like Elsevier publishes total quackery and insists libraries buy it as part of a bundle.
posted by Nelson at 8:32 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]

Interestingly enough, when I was taught about critical appraisal of texts, a blog named e.g. http://newenglandjournalofmedicine-is-not-predatory-publisher.blogspot.com was exactly the place we were told to look if we wanted to find out the credibility of say, in this, case, the New England Journal of Medicine.
posted by ambrosen at 9:09 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]

I wonder if the journals would even notice a paper submitted by Drs. S. Cooper and L. Hofstadter.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:18 AM on April 6, 2017 [4 favorites]

Reminds me of the time when I wanted to do a high school history fair project on a subject sufficiently obscure that the Chicago Public Library had one source on the subject. I filled out the rest of the bibliography with works by S. Summers, J. Gray, O. Munroe, P. Rasputin, S. Cassidy, and K. Wagner. (Maybe even W. Logan.) Good times.
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:09 AM on April 6, 2017 [2 favorites]

<scottish>So these predatory journals are not a wee problem, then?</scottish>

Also, I'm given to understand that this is the only scientific research Donald Trump will support for some reason.

(Try the veal)
posted by Quindar Beep at 11:32 AM on April 6, 2017

Halloween Jack, one of the sources in a high school history paper of mine was "I Want to Be a Pickle Bender" by G. H. Erkin. I was trying to make a point about what my teacher was actually reading in our work and also I was a bit of a tool at 15.
posted by Quindar Beep at 11:35 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]

Reminds me of the time when I wanted to do a high school history fair project on a subject sufficiently obscure that the Chicago Public Library had one source on the subject. I filled out the rest of the bibliography with works by S. Summers, J. Gray, O. Munroe, P. Rasputin, S. Cassidy, and K. Wagner. (Maybe even W. Logan.) Good times.
posted by Halloween Jack

Everybody knows W. Logan is a hack scholar who's been coasting on his reputation since at least the early 80s. Best at what he does, my ass. What he does ain't pretty.
posted by the phlegmatic king at 12:07 PM on April 6, 2017 [2 favorites]

I've gotten these requests before. "We would be honored to have you prepare a chapter for SO AND SO METHODOLOGY BOOK due to your expertise on THIS METHOD." It turns out that the book is a scam, the publisher is a scam, and anyone with that line on their publication list has just doomed their career. It's pretty cruel playing with a grad student's emotions like that, when you're constantly looking for the next piece of your CV so that you can be competitively employable.
posted by codacorolla at 12:30 PM on April 6, 2017 [2 favorites]

the journal formally accepted the paper — and asked for $799, plus tax. Although McCool never had any intention of paying that, the paper has been published

how does that even happen?! If they want money, why do they publish articles without money?
posted by floatboth at 2:18 PM on April 6, 2017

I'm also kind of surprised they pretended to do peer review. Why bother? I guess I assumed they targeted either researchers who didn't care it was a fake journal and were willing to pay for a line on their CV, or people who didn't know enough about the academic publishing process to recognise a predatory journal, in which case a pretence of peer review is probably unnecessary.
posted by lollusc at 5:04 PM on April 6, 2017