Shatner v Reddit: racists group there to "incite and spread their hatred"

Captain Kirk takes on the hive-mind.

William Shatner has had it up to here with reddit and he's letting them know about it.

The former Captain Kirk, who has been an active user of the site for a couple of weeks now, made a suggestion on the ideasfortheadmins subreddit to allow for private messages to be turned off. (He is understandably annoyed that his mailbox filling up with fanmail obscures more important functions of the site.) That suggestion, which was relatively well received, bubbled up into Shatner expressing his dismay at the less-salubrious aspects of the site, writing that:

Reddit has been the first 'mainstream' site that I have been to that actually appears to allow racists and other hate mongers to group, congregate, incite and spread their hatred. There's entire subreddits that allow it.

When reddit's free-speech brigade — the same wing of the site which is so dedicated to "free-speech" that the Gawker network remains banned from posting links to a lot of subreddits over Adrian Chen's unmasking of shock-poster Violentacrez — took Shatner to task over this, arguing that banning for racism would be against the site's rules, he pointed out the site has other rules too, which are never enforced:

  • Remember the human. When you communicate online, all you see is a computer screen. When talking to someone you might want to ask yourself "Would I say it to the person's face?" or "Would I get jumped if I said this to a buddy?"
  • Adhere to the same standards of behavior online that you follow in real life.

The general reddit view of the right to anonymous free speech trumping all other rights has got the site in trouble before. Subreddits focused around creepshots (sexualised pictures of women taken without their consent), jailbait (sexualised pictures of under-18 year olds) and beating women have all hit the news in the last few months. Bizarrely, this has happened at the same time as the site has become a standard fixture on the PR trail for celebrities in all walks of life. The "Ask Me Anything" format reached its apotheosis when Barack Obama turned up shortly before the election, and a growing number of visitors stick around afterwards.

The problem is that reddit runs itself like a social network while presenting itself like a monolithic site. Few blame Twitter or Facebook for the content they host, because the sites are so clearly run by the users. The question for reddit is whether, as its mainstream acceptance butts heads with its putrid underside, that decentralised nature will become common knowledge. If it doesn't — if the site and its admins continue to appear responsible for everything they allow — there could be trouble ahead.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Cameron Spencer/Getty
Show Hide image

“Predatory” journals are distorting the brave new world of open science

An outbreak of new journals in recent years threatens the potential benefits of open-access science

The modern, digital era of peer-reviewed science is changing the way high-quality research is being released. As soon as a study has been validated for accuracy, it’s almost immediately published online and covered by a dozen websites before the end of the working day. It can create a sense of collaboration, with more people finding ways to tackle serious challenges such as cancer and climate change. Or it can increase global competitiveness, with discoveries leading to new products and services.

However, there’s been a huge proliferation in recent years of new, obscure open-access journals, potentially hindering quality and verification. A new study published in BMC Medicine is claiming that such “predatory” journals are drastically altering the landscape for the worse, by “preying” on both readers and potential scientists throughout the process. (Incidentally, we can trust BMC Medicine on this. It’s one of many periodicals from BioMed Central, a well-respected subsidiary of the science publishing giant Springer Nature.)

The business model for journal publishing organisations varies. Most are commercial businesses, charging authors a fee to have their papers scrutinised and published, while also charging other individual readers or groups, such as universities, for access. Non-profit groups, like PLOS, only charge authors who have submitted their manuscripts, eventually releasing papers into the public after a round of fact-checking.

This can sometimes become a long, arduous process, given that a journal’s reputation is at stake, especially when publishing high-profile research or claims. We don’t have to look too far back to remember the implosion at the Lancet, with Andrew Wakefield’s unsubstantiated claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Some people (especially friends across the pond) still believe this nonsense. With this in mind, you can see how and why readers can become the ultimate target for misleading declarations in journals.

But it’s understandable why there’s an enormous weight behind having research published. It allows an academic to improve their future job prospects and salary levels, all while giving their work the approval they seek. After all, an academic’s list of published work is an extension of their CV. Just look at any university lecturer’s online profile and you’ll see a string of links to their published research on the same page.

This pressure to publish as much work as possible has led to an explosion in the number of articles by open-access publishers who carry between 10-99 different journals. Only four years ago, the market share was dominated by larger, long-established institutions who each carried 100 or more different journals, covering a range of scientific topics. The study also found “predatory” journals have increased the number of open-access articles from 53,000 in 2010 to approximately 420,000 from 8,000 various journals in 2014.

What may also be contributing to the pressure of becoming a well-cited author is the article processing charge (APC) amounts by “predatory” journals. Unsurprisingly, scientists want to save as much money as possible, with the average cost of publication in these publications approximately $178. This is a far cry from the many hundreds of dollars charged by widely-known and respected journals. For example, Scientific Reports, a journal offered by the powerful Nature Publishing Group, charges $1,495 to process a manuscript, excluding taxes. By having such low APCs, “predatory” publishers can make well-intentioned researchers victims just like their readers, at the same time as making money from them.

Where exactly are these new journals coming from? Investigators Professor Bo-Christer Björk and Cenyu Shen of Helsinki’s Hanken School of Economics note that 27 per cent of “predatory” publishers are based in India, 17.5 per cent in North America and 26.8 per cent in locations impossible to determine. It’s also telling that many of these journals often have the words “international” or “American” in their title in order to display a misleading sense of importance and prestige – something the study highlights.

What separates well-known journals from “predatory” ones is the often lengthy, tedious process it can take in order to publish a study. You can usually see this at the top of a research paper, with dates showing when it was submitted for review and also official publication.

However, even this can reveal major flaws within the peer-review system at some of the most prestigious science periodicals. This was proved by John Bohannon, correspondent for Science, who purposefully submitted fake documents riddled with major errors. In the end, the made-up study was accepted by 157 journals, and rejected by only 98. The story has its own Wikipedia page, so you know it’s true.

Creating hoaxes and half-truths about people or places is just part of everyday life with the internet. But this new (and reliable!) study is showing the possible negative outcome in the drive of pushing more science into the open. Perhaps it’s a small price to pay. Maybe we need to research it a bit more.