Just call me Mr Editor in Chief

I have recently received an invitation I never expected to see. Apparently I am in demand to be the editor of a scientific journal - the prestigious-sounding American Journal of Physics and Applications.

You might expect me to been honoured by this offer. But something made me feel that perhaps this wasn't all it appeared to be.

It is quite true that, as referenced above, I have written something that is technically considered to be an academic paper entitled Doctor Mirabilis: Roger Bacon's legend and legacy. And I know of at least one other genuine paper with my name on it (strictly part of a technical reference book), which as it happens might be more appropriate as it was physics-based, rather than history of science. But I am not an academic, I mostly write books and I don't have the right qualifications to be considered for such a post. Sadly, it feels like a situation where a name has been plucked from the internet to support some kind of dubious journal business.

A quick look into the publisher behind this journal, Science Publishing Group, finds it labelled a predatory publisher, based in Pakistan despite the journal name and the apparent New York address. According to Wikipedia it published 430 journals as of 2019. The Wikipedia entry lists both an accepted spoof article (allegedly written by Maggie Simpson of The Simpsons TV show fame) and an article in the American Journal of Applied Mathematics 'containing an alleged proof of Buddhist karma'.

I asked Tom Chivers of the Science Fictions podcast about this publisher. As well as pointing to the issues mentioned above, he told me 'More generally, paper mills are a growing problem – one recent estimate suggested 5% of the entire biomedical literature is fake – and the problem is the incentive structure in science: researchers must publish papers to advance their careers, so they are pushed to churn out as many papers as they can, whether by p-hacking positive results or by (in this case) faking them altogether. Cracking down on paper mills and fraud would be great, but can only be a partial fix - moving away from the publish-or-perish system and perhaps from journals altogether is the only way to remedy the underlying problem.'

In fairness, I thought I should ask the publisher what was in it for me. They responded (in suspiciously AI-generated fashion):

Greetings from the editorial office of American Journal of Physics and Applications.

The editorial board and reviewer team are voluntary positions with no financial compensation.

Benefits for Serving as Editorial Board Members and Reviewers:

1. Enhance academic influence and enrich your resume.

2. Receive a Certificate for acknowledging your contributions to the journal.

3. Get your name listed on the journal website.

4. Get access to the latest research and new contacts in your research field.

5. Get to know other scholars in your field and broaden academic connectivity.

6. Enjoy special offers on Article Processing Charges if you want to publish your manuscripts in the journal.

Ooh, a certificate! Hmm. Being an editor with no financial compensation seems something of a recipe for minimal editorial input. I think I'll be giving it a miss.

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog