So every article from every journal should be read under the assumption that peer review markers are a poor way to make a preliminary decision point as to whether the article merits attention? It's going to be difficult to assume every one is expert enough to judge every paper they read solely on the content absent context of labeling or assumption of basic peer review. Journal labels provide a context. Are we to ignore that? Doesn't that make introduction to a literature for novices or the task of anyone reading outside the narrow boundaries of their discipline almost impossible?
Chuck Hamaker Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: David Prosser Date:09/24/2014 4:38 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals" Of course, sharp practices such as passing yourself off for another company, including the names of Nobel Price winners in your editorial board, repackaging papers into fictitious journals at the behest of pharma companies, etc., etc. are all to be be deplored. They are immoral at best and illegal at worst. But they form a tiny part of the overall scholarly communications landscape. They have no more 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic publishing’ than ‘Nigerian' scams have damaged the banking industry or paypal scams have damaged the very foundations of e-commerce. Why does Jeffery Beall find it necessary to compile his list of predatory publisher? Well, I’m not privy to Mr Beall’s motivations, but his writing on OA certain makes one pause for thought and perhaps provide some clues: http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514 But maybe I am underestimating the effect these journals have. Does anybody know either: a) What percentage of the world’s scholarly literature is published in journals listed by Mr Beall b) What percentage of papers from authors in less developed countries goes to journals listed by Mr Beall c) What percentage of the total revenue to publishers (estimated at about $10billion annually) goes to publishers listed by Mr Beall If these journals are really 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic publishing’ then I would expect the percentages to be higher than tiny. The interesting point that Raghavan et al make is that these journals are publishing bad papers and that this is bad for research in the long run. They make the suggestion that papers published in such journals should not be counted in research assessment. Here’s a radical idea - rather than judge the quality of a paper based on Mr Beall’s rather arbitrary criteria, why not judge it on the quality of the research in the paper itself? David On 23 Sep 2014, at 23:51, Dana Roth <dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>> wrote: If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to issue a "Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers" ... See: http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers at: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries. Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm ________________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] on behalf of David Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:30 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals" Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic publishing, No it hasn’t. It’s a minor annoyance, at most. David On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das <anupdas2...@gmail.com<mailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com><mailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com>> wrote: Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742. Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and communication technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the advent and rise of electronic publications, especially predatory open-access journals, has resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, impediment and urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions. Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and researchers. The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical example of ‘predatory publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race to publish. The urge to publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two manifestations, i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be associated with the urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, mihi itch (loosely) explains the behaviour of researchers, especially biologists publishing in predatory journals yearning to see their name/s associated with a new ‘species name’. Most predatory journals do not have an IF, and authors publishing in such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ (read without factor), and popularity by seeing their names appear in print media. This practice has most often led to the publication of substandard papers in many fields, including ichthyology. Download Full-text Article: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/05/0740.pdf _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org><mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
