Talk:Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine

Additional potential reference

 * Johnson, Summer, Ph.D. Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal, Blog.bioethics.net, May 1, 2009, retrieved May 3, 2009
 * An editorial regarding the scandal

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

More additional references
Elsevier published 6 fake journals Posted by Bob Grant [Entry posted at 7th May 2009 04:27 PM GMT]

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/

Elsevier's own statement: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_01203 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseWoman (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Academic Journals
As the following discussion relates to this article, I've copied the following discussion (until 11 May 2009) from the wikiproject's talk page. Hermel (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine is a non-journal disguised as a journal. added the WP:WikiProject Academic Journals's template to the article's talk page.

Does this WikiProject concern itself with publications masquerading as journals? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fully aware of the status of this journal (in fact, it was all the brouhaha that led me to check whether we had an article on it). As this was masquerading as a scientific journal, I think it belongs to the Journals Wikiproject. Placing that banner there does not signify any endorsement or such, just that this article falls within the interests of this particular Wikiproject. --Crusio (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 06:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004183113/http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/blog.jsp?type=blog&o_url=blog/display/55679&id=55679 to http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/blog.jsp?type=blog&o_url=blog/display/55679&id=55679

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Name and scope
I think this should be refocused and renamed from a single journal to the incident proper. For example, Elsvier and Merck fake journals controversy might be a better title. Ping User:Randykitty who first alerted me to the existence of this topic (tnx!). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea. Pinging and  to get their opinion. --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP tries to avoid pejorative titles, however well deserved. But in any case it's better not use  "controversy" as part of a title, so it could be "Elsevier fake medical journals".  DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. Also, we should check whether this "controversy" isn't already adequately covered in one of the multiple articles that we have criticizing Elsevier, perhaps merging it somewhere makes more sense. It may not be worth a separate article, after all, it was not a huge affair, and it never was an "official" Elsevier thing, but a rogue publisher in Australia acting without the knowledge of upper management. --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It can be expanded with a more general title. There were similar publications under the guise of "supplements" done by other publishers, including I think the NEJM. We probably have that covered somewhere already.  DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)