Academic spam can be funny some times. Who on earth is going to fall for this one?
I had a glance at your profile online and was extremely amazed with your work. I feel you will be an ideal person who helps us for the progress of our Journal. Hence, I am approaching you through this email.
All the authors around the globe are cordially invited to submit any type of the article based upon your research interest for the upcoming edition.
I hope you will consider my request and I wish to have your speedy response in 24 hrs.
Await your cheerful comeback.
👉 So, please, all the authors around the globe, quickly submit any article! I’m sure it’s going to be great, any you’ll have plenty of readers… but note that you’ll have to respond within 24 hours…
It’s not new, but it’s still worth sharing:
The instructions go: “You’re a social scientist with a hunch: The U.S. economy is affected by whether Republicans or Democrats are in office. Try to show that a connection exists, using real data going back to 1948. For your results to be publishable in an academic journal, you’ll need to prove that they are “statistically significant” by achieving a low enough p-value.”
The tool is here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/
And more on p-hacking here: Wikipedia — to understand why “success” in the above is not what it seems.
I’m just going through some reviewer comments on a paper I have no stake in at all, and came across this gem:
The study finds support in favour of their hypothesis.
This was highlighted as a key strength of the study. Let’s not quibble about hypotheses here, but let’s focus on the explicit value for a “positive” result. This matters, because it’s peer review, and it’s the standards we have as reviewers that shape what gets published (and where). This focus on positive results does not help us move forward with actually understanding what’s going on — but then a cynic would see a quite different role for publications anyway.
Here’s a quite helpful checklist for research articles from the Academy of Sociology.
I guess ‘checklist’ is the wrong way to describe it; it’s more like a list of desiderata for good research articles to be considered before starting to write. I mean who’s going to go through 11 pages before submitting an article?
The points are quite helpful, but they are only starting points — follow the links and do your own research on the topics.
Funny thing: Just as I’m doing some light reading on metrics, impact factor gaming, and predatory journals with no real peer-review, I get a revised article to review where there were six (!) reviewers solicitated, all of whom made substantial recommendations.