Wow, I’ve just been awarded a random honorary membership… to entice me to submit to a predatory journal? I don’t think so.
I mean it had everything going for, a membership of a journal (!), a membership number(!), and even an expiration date (obviously they weren’t that impressed to only offer a single quarter). I could identify two past honoraries… Shame I never heard of the journal, or the publisher, and shame it’s listed on this funny page here: https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/ — because they also offer some great benefits, like “Indexing: In all relevant organizations”, an “artificial intelligence” 3rd reviewer which can (I quote) “can detect writing styles, plagiarism (for the second time), grammar, contextual spellings, vocabulary, and quality of the article without any human biasing” (?!). All this on top of priority during reviewing.
I am happy to announce a new call for a joint survey, building to a joint publication.
You can contribute (a) survey questions, (b) designs for survey experiments, and (c) interest in survey analysis in the following areas:
— The role of limited information in decisions to migrate
— Aspirations and abilities to migrate
— The role of different narratives of migration
— Immobility (inability or lack of motivation to move)
— Research on the role of trust in migration decisions
— Health and migration
The survey will probably be fielded in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, or a combination of these countries in October 2020.
You are embedded in a university in a Subsaharan African
country or in Switzerland, and study human migration in any relevant discipline.
Deadline: 4 September 2020
Online form: http://neuchatel.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9ulRPsbrISMoJSJ
For further information on the Swiss-Subsaharan Africa Migration Network (S-SAM): http://www.unine.ch/sfm/home/formation/ssam.html
Paper here at Medical Anthropology. Bent Steenberg explores how immigrants in South Africa with HIV manage socially (as opposed to medically). He explores the complexities of stigma by juxtaposing perceptions of illness between HIV-positive Mozambican migrants in care and members of their communities unware of their own serostatus. He argues that stigma is tied to location through social networks. Stigma continues to cause distress.
I have just received an invitation to review an article by a publisher that’s — let’s say “less established”. Given that they have been accused of being a predatory publisher in the past, I was at first positively surprised: There was none of this silly flattering of being a leading expert etc. and they apparently did try to get a proper review. Then came the title and the abstract. It had “public attitudes” in it, and a “scoping review” — so if you allow for synonyms in the keyword search, I can see how their machine picked me, but if no human is involved, neither am I (irrespective of the fact that this was utterly out of my expertise). Maybe we should react with automatized reviews, a fork of SciGen perhaps?
I sometimes get a bit annoyed when your colleagues seemingly feel like they have to slavishly implement any odd thought I mention as if it was me and not the editor deciding whether the paper gets accepted (even when I explicitly write “I encourage the author(s) to consider X, and then make up their own mind”), but that’s not you. You thought that none of my comments applied to you when the editor rejected the paper last time around, and perhaps hoped you’d get “lucky” next time at a different journal. Did you realize reviewer 1 and I volunteer our time to help improve your work? Do you actually care about the contents of your paper, or is it just a line on your CV?