Sometimes I think librarians need to be careful about promoting the use of open access journals as the articles are not necessarily peer reviewed. Some unusual errors may creep in…..
For example I came across the following statement in the journal Aquatic Invasions. It is adescription of a shell species that is usually done using very formal and precise terminology :
“Photographs were taken and measurements
were made of these shells (Figure 2, Table 1).
The shell is very small (5-6mm), ovate,
consisting of 5 to 6 whorls, which are are rather
rounded, with an (Renee Zellweger) ovate
opening. Shell colors vary from gray and dark
brown to light brown”
There is no such thing as a Renee Zellweger ovate opening….. I am deeply shocked by this but at the same time I may well add this to my thesis to see if anyone notices……..
:-)Caroline Anderson.
You mean they named the actress after some obscure shell!
Dave C.
Er, not so obscure! It’s an invasive pest, native to New Zealand, and has been steadily invading the world. It’s very hardy and can quickly colonise areas, having a negative affect on populations of other aquatic organisms. (Ditto RZ, maybe, except the NZ native bit!)
Deirdre
Interestingly, the journal’s website http://www.aquaticinvasions… says it is a peer-reviewed journal (and there are definitely non-open access journals that aren’t). I do always make sure to point out to students that even scientists, including reviewers, make mistakes, and this looks like a particularly egregrious example of that!
http://retractionwatch.word… is an interesting look at another side of accuracy in science.
Deborah
Just run across http://metadata.posterous.c… which lists some open access publishers with predatory business models – seems like a good list, except that consensus among folks I know is that it’s really weird to put Hindawi even on the not-predatory-but-monitoring list since it’s perfectly legit and respected.
Deborah