Gold OA, Grifters, and Tylenol
Andrea Love, PhD, figures out one way OA publishing is being exploited
It’s said that the downsides of an innovation become clear after about 20 years. If the innovation has particularly noxious untoward effects, it can even be banned or at least heavily regulated — examples include cigarette smoking, trans fats, and OxyContin. Social media, digital tablets, and smartphones are some tech innovations that have come under scrutiny for children and teens in particular. Regulations are being adopted for schools at an increased rate.
The Gold OA model is approaching its 20th year, and things are not looking good.
When the Trump Administration belched out its “finding” that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy caused autism, we immediately began to fish about for a grift — after all, that’s what these people are always up to.
There is always a grift.
It didn’t take long to find out that one of the authors of a key paper was a paid “expert witness.” That and a few other findings got us on the scent, but we didn’t have time to track it all down and knit it all together.
Luckily, one of our new heroes, Dr. Andrea Love — an immunologist who runs the “Immunologic” newsletter — did track it all down and knit it together for the most part.
But even she doesn’t know how bad it is.
It’s a story that should have us rethinking our pay-to-publish business model — the Gold OA corruption we’ve nurtured for the past two decades to the detriment of science overall.