|
No bottom to worse at Elsevier?
Like Dorothea, I haven't said anything about the slimy Merck/Elsevier fake publication deal, because I thought the blogosphere had plenty of coverage. Anyone who reads me would know all about the scandal. The latest development, though, strikes me as something that should be shouted from every available rooftop: Elsevier simply must answer the questions raised. Via Dorothea: Jonathan Rochkind has done a little "forensic librarianship" and raised astonishing questions about the entire imprint, Excerpta Medica, which published the fake journal that started all of this. Go read Jonathan, but the bottom line is this: Excerpta Medica does not provide a straightforward list of its own publications or make clear which are, ahem, "industry-sponsored". Jonathan says "WorldCat lists 50 publications by Excerpta Medica Communications"; I just tried a simple author search for that phrase and got only 21 results, including the recently-exposed-as-fake Australasian journal of bone & joint medicine; how many others are fake? How about the other
Why, for one thing, are none of them indexed by Science Direct? The PubMed journal limit field contains only Australasian journals of dermatology, pharmacy and optometry; the latter two seem to be defunct and the first is published by Wiley. Futher obvious questions arising:
Comments For the record, I could not find any of the titles in Bill's original list in Scopus. I started through Jonathan's additions, though. There were no direct hits for "Oncology update", but there were 180 references in articles in Scopus pointing to that journal. Likewise, there were 14 references to articles in "Reviews in clinical neurology" but no direct hits from that journal title in Scopus. 112 hits in references to "Cognition & schizophrenia" -- again, no direct hits in Scopus by title. I'm not quite sure what to make of these findings... You may wish to read the report in The Scientist at the following link. It has a list of the "six titles in a "series of sponsored article publications" ... put out by their Australia office and bore the Excerpta Medica imprint from 2000 to 2005.." There is also a link in the article to a statement by Michael Hansen, CEO of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, regarding the six journals. http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/#comments As an academic medical librarian for over 30 years, I am very familiar with Excerpta Medica and Elsevier. For many years Excerpta Medica Foundation published the International Congress Series which began with no. 1 in 1952 and ceased with no. 1304 in 2007. These were the proceedings of international meetings, and many academic medical libraries subscribed to the series and cataloged them in what is now WorldCat. I cannot say for sure, but I believe these were legitimate conference proceedings that would not have been published without Excepta Medica. Excerpta Medica Foundation also published an abstract journal that was international in scope and attempted to cover the world's biomedical literature very broadly. It was published in many subject sections and most academic medical libraries tried to subscribe to it for as long as they could afford it. The online version of this is what is now called EMBase. Excerpta Medica was invaluable in its coverage of regional and small national biomedical journals, and by the fact that it included abstracts of articles that might take weeks or months to obtain, if at all. Through these very respected publishing and abstracting services, Excerpta Medica developed a reputation that was recognized and highly regarded. But it is clear to me that scientific journal publishing has morphed over the past 10 years, publishing houses continue to consolidate, and many are now being run by the marketing division, not by the editorial division of the publishing houses. Some of these publishers with gold standard brands are trading on their reputations to generate more sales and income with not much regard for the quality of what is being published. Elsevier has morphed, and so has Nature. I think that now is the time for scientists and their scientific societies to take back the role of reviewing and publishing science. It is too important to be farmed out to commercial publishers. Post a comment |
RSS Feed
Links: (formerly Malice Aforethought) me spousal unit Bloglines account Simpy account Connotea account OpenWetWare userpage googlebombs for good Roe; Wade; Roe v Wade abortion Jew Seldovia Herald blogroll: Archives: March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 October 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 |
The online free worldcat.org does not let you search by 'publisher'.
But if your institution has access to FirstSearch WorldCat interface, you can search a 'publisher' index, and that's where I searched for 'excerpta medica' and got my hits. I suppose I can probably do that again and copy and paste...
The phrase "excerpta medica" seems to be used by Elsevier in all sorts of contexts that I'm not confident are a medical PR firm. (That's what the "EM" in EMBase stand for).
So this is a phrase search for "excerpta medica communications" in publisher field.
I'm currently only seeing 22 hits, mostly all journals. i could swear that yesterday I saw 50, some of which were conference proceedings (from real or fake conferences? I dunno), but maybe I did a slightly different search then.
These are of course just titles that happen to have wound up in WorldCat somehow, it's not necessarily an exhaustive list. Most of these titles have no holdings in WorldCat. Not sure how they ended up in WorldCat, but most records have a note "ISSN prepublication record." Sounds like someone did get them from the ISSN authority? Still wonder why they don't show in Ulrichs.
I think all of these records were specifically published in Australia: "Chatswood, N.S.W. : Excerpta Medica Communications." Excerpta Medica Communications itself is not specifically an Australian operation, but then, the fake Merck journal wasn't targetted only at Australian doctors. Maybe they use their NSW subsidiary for journal publishing? I dunno.
Australasian journal of general practice 1444-5255
Australasian journal of cardiology.
1446-3652
Een nieuwe heup
Cognition & schizophrenia
Australasian journal of bone & joint medicine
1447-5529
Australasian journal of cardiovascular medicine
1444-044X
Australasian journal of paediatrics
1446-4004
Australasian journal of obstetrics & gynaecology
1446-4012
Australasian journal of dentistry.
1446-4055
Australasian journal of infectious diseases
1446-4063
Australasian journal of pain management.
1446-4071
Australasian journal of respiratory medicine.
1446-408X
Australasian journal of sexual health.
1446-4101
Australasian journal of psychiatry.
1446-3768
Australasian journal of asthma.
1446-411X
Australasian journal of gastroenterology.
1446-4136
Australasian journal of hospital pharmacy.
1446-4144
Reviews in clinical neurology.
1447-7491
Australasian journal of depression.
1446-4152
Core journals in oncology.
1447-7521
Oncology update.
SSN: 1447-753X; Other format's ISSN: 1447-7548