Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)
49. It's a pay-to-play journal
Tue Feb 19, 2019, 01:40 PM
Feb 2019

Which means the author pays to have the study published. Not all pay-to-play journals are bad, but the one's that are decent typically start out at a $1500 fee which covers the costs of legitimate high quality peer review and publication costs. MDPI journals typically charge $200-300 which right away tells you they aren't paying much for peer review and more likely are publishing just about anything brought to them which inevitably leads to the promotion of junk science masquerading as real science.

I think the why is much simpler. The author has a side business of writing non-peer reviewed books, probably in hopes that his university will accept them and charge hapless students hundreds of dollars for it as a textbook. No doubt he will then use that book to further prop up his next "research" project further building on the house of cards.

This guy is nothing more than a scam artist that many universities tolerate for one reason or another. The main difference is this one throws in the promotion of evangelicalism, which no doubt creates an environment where people are going to be overly cautious about calling bullshit for fear of allegations of intolerance.

I'd say it's more than religion. no_hypocrisy Feb 2019 #1
Good points. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #3
Which suggests the Bible is never very clear Bretton Garcia Feb 2019 #9
It suggests that people claim many reasons guillaumeb Feb 2019 #20
Wrong again. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #2
Argue with the authors. eom guillaumeb Feb 2019 #4
No doubt someone else already is. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #6
Guess. MineralMan Feb 2019 #8
Did you read the article? guillaumeb Feb 2019 #17
Glad you asked Major Nikon Feb 2019 #38
Busted! Cartoonist Feb 2019 #42
But...but...but... trotsky Feb 2019 #44
Even then only the part he likes Major Nikon Feb 2019 #46
Question: Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #43
You can reference the full study Major Nikon Feb 2019 #47
It all leads back to the same point. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #48
It's a pay-to-play journal Major Nikon Feb 2019 #49
Damn, even by gil's standards this has been a spectacular wreck of a thread. trotsky Feb 2019 #50
The study only counted a very vague Religious data point Lordquinton Feb 2019 #5
It also assumes Third Grade teachers are qualified to evaluate childhood development. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #7
It did suggest some intellectual failures in some religious students though Bretton Garcia Feb 2019 #10
It's not even all that interesting Major Nikon Feb 2019 #12
We might consider this study as say, an anecdote Bretton Garcia Feb 2019 #57
Shit study published in a shit journal Major Nikon Feb 2019 #11
Thanks for that information. MineralMan Feb 2019 #13
... Major Nikon Feb 2019 #14
Perhaps so. MineralMan Feb 2019 #15
Neither is belief peserverance. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #19
It does say that Major Nikon Feb 2019 #23
Were you reading between the lines? guillaumeb Feb 2019 #25
Did you even read the 3rd paragraph in your own excerpt? Major Nikon Feb 2019 #26
Dod you read all the ay down? guillaumeb Feb 2019 #27
So you think this somehow magically changes the negative outcomes mentioned to positive ones? Major Nikon Feb 2019 #29
There are questions about whether religion is a net positive or a negitive. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #32
WTF is anything you're saying have to do with what anyone else is talking about? Major Nikon Feb 2019 #34
And the 50/50 reproducibilty factor, to which you attached so much weight? guillaumeb Feb 2019 #35
Focus Major Nikon Feb 2019 #37
So we should atke all articles referenced here dealing with decining numbers of theists guillaumeb Feb 2019 #18
I'm not sure how many here are too stupid to figure out the difference between a study and a survey Major Nikon Feb 2019 #22
Reference some data to make your points. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #24
I think you make my point quite well Major Nikon Feb 2019 #28
So you have no evidence, only assertions. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #30
Focus Major Nikon Feb 2019 #31
So do you reject this study because, in a 50/50 possibility framework, guillaumeb Feb 2019 #33
No Major Nikon Feb 2019 #36
Damn dude, you really gotta learn the first rule when you find yourself in a hole. trotsky Feb 2019 #45
Here's the thing about junk "scientific" journals: MineralMan Feb 2019 #51
The headline right below your post. Voltaire2 Feb 2019 #16
Focus. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #21
On the effects organized religion has on children? Voltaire2 Feb 2019 #40
Sounds like someone doesn't want to talk about the negative impacts Major Nikon Feb 2019 #39
It always is. nt littlemissmartypants Feb 2019 #41
Similar to when some here complain when I post about China? guillaumeb Feb 2019 #53
... Major Nikon Feb 2019 #54
Unless you deny what has happened in the China posts, guillaumeb Feb 2019 #55
... Major Nikon Feb 2019 #56
A word or two about scienceddaily.com from Wikipedia: MineralMan Feb 2019 #52
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Sociologists study the im...»Reply #49