So, I'm reading about predatory journals, where the journal is probably just online, and nobody reads it because the material isn't that great, because they don't do any peer reviewing. (I get lots of spam from the same type of people, usually promoting their "conferences.") Academics may get forced into publishing with these guys because of "publish or perish," and so deceptive journals will charge them to get a publishing credit.
Now, I know, all of you are going to think this is a bad thing. But where others see danger, I see opportunity. I mean, we already have a journal that nobody reads (unless they desperately need CPEs), and we already don't do any peer reviewing: why not just go the final step? Charge desperate academics (or others who need publishing credits) to get an article in the magazine.
I think it could be a great source of extra cash for ISC2. For extra details, see here.
Of course, there is a serious side to this. Not only are the predatory journals ripping off researchers and academics, but they are also publishing anything, so "fake science" may become a real thing ...
> Curiousmind18 (Viewer) posted a new reply in Member Support on 12-12-2018 09:06 AM in the (ISC)Â² Community :
> So basically, you don't think people review items for the journal? Or in usc2 in general?
Well, I know that some areas, like the exam, are definitely reviewed. But the
journal? Based on the issues I've read, no, I wouldn't think so ...
====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You
pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles.
Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way:
you send signals here, they receive them there. The only
difference is that there is no cat. - Albert Einstein
So basically, you don't think people review items for the journal? Or in usc2 in general?
For the benefit of many who read this forum, I think it important to clarify that the entire topic of predatory journals is about the use of peer review of research articles in academic research journals. In academic research journals, peer review is the process in which recognized researchers in the area review the submitted research report article for validity of the described research, both in terms of experimental methodology and logical conclusions, as well as adequacy of definition of the target population and sample selection in that population. The peer review is blind, in that the reviewers are not told the identify of the authors, to reduce possibility of bias in the reviewers' evaluation. Usually there are three peer reviewers for each article, allowing the journal editor to provide solid feedback to the authors when either declining to publish or asking for revisions to prepare the article for publication.
This peer review process is substantially different from the more widely understood editorial review of articles. Editorial review involves grammar, syntax, punctuation, writing style, readability, and, of course, appropriateness of the topic and viewpoint for the journal or magazine's purpose and target audience.
For more discussion, readers can search the web for predatory journals, Jeffrey Beall, and now, as pointed out by Grandpa Rob @rslade Derek Pyne.
@CraginS makes an important observation. To tie it back to examples that are familiar to us all, InfoSecurity Professional Magazine is just that, a magazine. It is generally subject to editorial review as Craign describes it.
The prototypical example of a journal is JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association. Its research articles are subject to peer review.
Complicating the distinction is that JAMA contains Viewpoints and Editorials that are subject only to editorial review and is entirely possible (although unlikely) for peer-reviewed research to appear in a magazine, such as ISP.