
The Relative Weirdness of Birds - who-knows
https://theweek.com/speedreads/908969/whats-deal-birds-magnificent-scientific-paper-examines
======
ConsiderCrying
It's mildly amusing, sure, but publishing a rehash of a joke made on April 1st
two weeks later, on April 15th, feels like seeing someone lag in real life.
The paper should have been just left alone to be discovered by someone later
as a fun curio. Especially since The Week seems to be a completely serious
website the rest of the time, what a weird choice to publish that article two
weeks after April Fool's.

~~~
emmelaich
It's not just a joke, it has a serious purpose.

From the article > _it does seem to prove his point: That the Scientific
Journal of Research & Reviews is among dozens of "predatory journals" that
publish low-quality or unreviewed papers, often for an exorbitant fee._

~~~
everybodyknows
Following the thread of the substantive academic issue through the links,

[https://predatoryjournals.com/about/](https://predatoryjournals.com/about/)

[https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/18/librarians-
li...](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/18/librarians-list-
predatory-journals-reportedly-removed-due-threats-and-politics)

We arrive at a 2013 essay by University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall:

> To boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice the academic
> futures of young scholars and those from developing countries, pressuring
> them to publish in lower-quality open-access journals

> The movement relies on unnatural mandates that take free choice away from
> individual researchers, mandates set and enforced by an onerous cadre of
> Soros-funded European autocrats.

[http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514](http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514)

Still working on what to make of all this ...

~~~
jhbadger
The closed-access traditional publishing field fears the loss of their
business model in favor of open access, in which researchers and the public
can read articles without a paywall. To do this, they have tried to focus the
attention of the public on low-end obscure open-access journals which they
term "predatory journals" and hope that this discredits the idea of open
access in general. The problem is that while bad open access journals
certainly exist, so do bad closed-access journals.

------
acqq
The paper about which is written there is:

[https://irispublishers.com/sjrr/pdf/SJRR.MS.ID.000540.pdf](https://irispublishers.com/sjrr/pdf/SJRR.MS.ID.000540.pdf)

and, to warn anybody expecting more, ends with:

"Acknowledgements

We thank Big Bird from Sesame Street for comments on the manuscript. Several
trained monkeys transcribed videos."

Also: "Published Date: April 01, 2020"

In short: meh. Doesn't even appear to be funny, especially especially when
"covered" on April 15, 2020, for my understanding of what is actually funny:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk)

.

~~~
TheGallopedHigh
Summary much appreciated though.

------
sramsay
I'm an _English professor_ and I get email from predatory journals all the
time. They often have weird, incredibly expansive titles _(The International
Journal of Business, Science, and Human Culture_ \-- something like that).

I don't really understand how they manage to stay in business, though. We all
know that there's a difference between _Cell Biology_ and this kind of fly-by-
night nonsense. In some disciplines, journals are quite explicitly ranked by
"quality," acceptance rate, etc. Certainly, my colleagues would know
immediately if I was publishing in some venue like this; it just wouldn't
"count."

Perhaps this scam is intended for another group? Some quack scientist (say)
wants to create a giant verifiable CV of their "publications?" Or someone
needs some kind of scholarly credentials as a humanist or social scientist,
but is unaffiliated?

The whole thing is a bit mystifying to me.

EDIT: I don't mean to imply, by the way, that "unaffiliated" scholars are
somehow forced to do this. I know quite a few independent scholars who do
excellent work and publish in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals.

~~~
lisper
> I don't really understand how they manage to stay in business

I suspect they follow the vanity press model and charge authors publication
fees.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press)

------
ezequiel-garzon
Allow me an academic masterpiece released this April Fools: “Defining the
Really Habitable Zone”,
[https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.13722](https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.13722)

------
ilsel
[https://irispublishers.com/sjrr/pdf/SJRR.MS.ID.000540.pdf](https://irispublishers.com/sjrr/pdf/SJRR.MS.ID.000540.pdf)

~~~
foobuzzHN
> We suggest that planets in the Really Habitable Zone be early targets for
> the JWST, because by the time that thing finally launches we're all going to
> need a drink.

LOL.

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
Footnote 6 is great too:

> 6 Yes, gins and tonic, not gin and tonics. You want multiple gins, not more
> tonic.

Or the note on Table 1:

> Note: all coefficients assume a pressure of 1 bar, as one simply cannot be
> in more than one bar at any given time. Once you find a good bar, you should
> stay in it.

------
dvh
Exhibit A: Shoebill:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=shoebill&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=shoebill&tbm=isch)

~~~
lisper
I see your shoebill and raise you a cassowary. They make it very plausible
that birds are descended from dinosaurs.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=cassowary&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=cassowary&tbm=isch)

Kiwis are pretty weird too.

------
dorena
Is this usually a legit journal??

~~~
TheGallopedHigh
No, it says so in the article that it’s a predatory journal.

