There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| Style over substance|
Skeptics will often ask pseudoscientists where the peer-reviewed papers on their claims are. Some pseudoscientists respond by starting a pseudojournal: something that claims to implement a peer review process and that tries very hard to capture the trappings of real scientific publication, since they don't understand what substance is.
The initial peer review process is unlike that of real science. In real science, the peers are looking to pick holes in the paper's methodology or substance for the purpose of improving the field. In pseudojournals, the peers are there to reinforce the advocacy of the pseudoscience in question.
Distinguishing between a pseudojournal and a merely unbelievably bad journal with an insane editor can be tricky, and there is somewhat of a demarcation problem. Answers Research Journal is a blatant pseudojournal of fraudulent intent; those involved in the Journal of Cosmology appeared to think they were actually doing science; Chaos, Solitons & Fractals was a platform for a lone crank but published by Elsevier and sold in bundles with indisputably real journals.
Elsevier's fake journals created for industry publicity have also been called "pseudojournals", as the intent is to have the appearance of science without the substance. The journals were anthologies of articles published in Elsevier's proper journals, on the subjects the marketers wanted journals on. Thus, the papers were real science, but the presentation was not.
Predatory open access journals are not generally termed "pseudojournals", though they are comparably awful. Predatory journals characteristically require high fees from researchers but do not perform anything like adequate editorial, peer review or publishing services for these fees. For example the OMICS Group of publications is regarded by librarian Jeffrey Beall as predatory. In 2016, associate professor in technology Christoph Bartneck submitted a paper to and was accepted by one of OMICS Group's 3000+ conferences, the International Conference on Atomic and Nuclear Physics. The paper was created entirely using Apple Siri's autocomplete feature, and was according to Bartneck, "gibberish".
- Diploma mill
- Beall's List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers
- Vanity publishing
- Elsevier’s Pseudo-Journals and the Drug Companies by Cheryl Rofer (Monday, 11 May 2009) Whirled View
- Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing: The explosion in open-access publishing has fuelled the rise of questionable operators by Declan Butler (27 March 2013) Nature.
- Beall’s List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers (archive.org page of Beall's List from January 11, 2017)
- Beall’s List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers (archive.is page of Beall's List from January 16, 2017)
- OMICS International
- Paper written by autocomplete accepted for academic conference by Jason Silverstein (Sunday, October 23, 2016, 9:51 AM) New York Daily News.