[GOAL] “Truthiness” isn’t quite truth, and “sciencey” isn’t quite science, even if published in Science: Mike Taylor’s “Anti-tutorial: how to design and execute a really bad study”

[Omega Alpha | Open Access]

"Truthiness" isn't quite truth, and "sciencey" isn’t quite science, even if published in Science: Mike Taylor's "Anti-tutorial: how to design and execute a really bad study" <http://wp.me/p20y83-Qb>
 
I’m a sucker for good satire. In a recent post I referenced Dorothea Salo's delightfully satirical article, "How to Scuttle a Scholarly Communication Initiative" where she lays out a detailed agenda for dissuading academic libraries from effective participation in scholarly communication activities on their campuses. This week, while trying to find the best hook for posting about the 'sting operation' conducted on a selection of open access journals recently reported in the journal Science, I landed on Mike Taylor's October 7, 2013 blog post, "Anti-tutorial: how to design and execute a really bad study."
 
The blog-o and Twitter-spheres have over the last four days offered extensive reporting and analysis of the article that appeared in the October 4, 2013 issue of Science. If you are one of a handful of persons who by now has not heard about this story the gist is this: …

Gary F. Daught
Omega Alpha | Open Access
Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com
oa.openaccess at gmail dot com | @OAopenaccess