Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 10/03/2013 01:22 PM:
On 10/03/2013 02:05 PM, glen wrote:
Re: using openness as a tool for opacity
As far as a I can tell, you are just using the word opacity to mean anything
that isn't clear enough to be wrong, or not apparently valuable enough to get
scrutiny.
No, I'm using "opacity" to mean information hiding. A subset of bad actor open-access journals in that
article are using "open washing" (in the same sense as "green washing") in two ways: a) to make a
profit (decreased costs by not doing significant reviewing) off submitters and b) to hide that profiteering. After
all, they _could_ publish behind a pay wall even though they don't provide any review services. But when you have to
pay for something, immediate, tight loop, expectations help identify flaws faster than when you identify something
"free" as worthless. So, in order to make the profit, they have to hide how they lower the cost. How do
they hide it? ... by claiming they're open access.
It's a disingenuous use of open access. The subset of incompetent actors aren't (I don't
think) purposefully "open washing" their product. They just don't know what
they're doing. (Re: the discussion of Hindawi in the article.)
--
--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
Engineer the future now. Damn tommorow, future now!
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
