I tend to agree with Thomas. Of course I appreciate Jeffrey Beals list
and his work very much, but we should not forget that predatory
publishing is also a practice of toll access publishers - or let's say
of publishing itself. And I even think it is more widespread in toll
access than in open
...they [start-up subscription journals, or as Stevan calls them bottom-rung
journals] were not subscribed to by institutions if there was no empty subject
niche they were filling, nor before they had established their track-records
for quality.
Where has Stevan been the last 4 decades?
The
a. I agree with Jan Velterop that the Fools-Gold Junk-Journal start-ups are
not a major problem and will be weeded out with time.
b. I even agree that authors (and referees) that fall for journal scam get
what they deserve, and perhaps learn a useful lesson from it.
c. I also agree that the
There is no question but that there are junk subscription journals, just as
there are junk OA journals.
But it does not help -- and only compounds confusion -- to conflate the
opportunistic practices of established subscription publishers with the
predatory practices of the growing spate of
[Apologies for cross-postings]
Welcome to the December 2012 issue of ScieCom info. Nordic - Baltic Forum for
Scientific Communication.
---
TABLE OF CONTENTS
News
Two new publication funds established in Norway during the last few days. More
info
Re: There are sooo many subscription journals occupying the same niche -
sometimes partially, but often enough completely - and yet they are all
subscribed to, widely or narrowly, but economically sufficiently, on the
strength of the adage that you can't afford to miss anything in your
Are many of the new commercial journals actually �subscribed to� or
are they added to existing packages in hopes they will capture
sufficient market share to continue? � my assumption is that the
concept of loss leaders is NOT operable for society published
journals.
While I don't think
