Hi all, One thing for everyone to begin to wrap their head around when it comes to talking "researchers/authors" and "predatory publishers" is that not all authors who submit to what people generally call predatory publishers are duped into submitting. Recent articles by Moher's group in Ottawa shed light on the fact that many western researchers (and others around the world) know exactly what they are getting into, and why they are publishing in such a journal... rapid pay-to-play publication, vanity publication, or the specific seeding of pseudoscience for whatever reason.
Also, because of this, we need to begin to narrow our definition of what we summarily call predatory publishing. Simply put, there are good publishers and bad publishers. Many may justifiably be labelled as bad publishers/journals, because they have poor editorial processes or limited resources, but they should not be labelled as "predatory"... they are simply not mature publishers/journals. Given the chance, and by following all good publication practices, hopefully these publishers/journals eventually mature and find their place in the scholarly literature. In order to actually focus our attention where it matters -- on publication ethics -- we must all start to agree that "predatory publishing" is a label that is to be reserved for publishers who practice in deceptive, deceitful, and/or fraudulent activities. Spam marketing with poorly written e-mails may be a distasteful marketing practice, but it does not make a journal predatory; unless there are fraudulent activities/claims involved in their practices. (A whole other can of worms is unveiled when it comes to GDPR -- are some journal marketing and data collection practices now considered illegal?) We need to focus our attention so that we are not expending valuable time and resources chasing bad journal marketing practices (call it out, maybe). We need to be protecting authors by bringing attention to deceptive, deceitful, and fraudulent publishing practices as the true predatory practices. Predatory is not a function of not having peer review -- it is a function of claiming that you do (or making other false claims) when you don't. Cheers, Don ----------------------------- Donald Samulack, PhD President, U.S. Operations Cactus Communications, Inc. Editage, a division of Cactus Communications E: [email protected] T: +1 (267) 332-0051 ext. 104 C: +1 (732) 357-5282 LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/samulack Skype ID: Samulack Twitter: @Samulack ORCiD: 0000-0003-2888-1439 ORCID Ambassador -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Victor Venema Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 8:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [GOAL] Predatory Publishing Richard, if I do not completely misremember I wrote a comment below your article, which seems to be in spam. I used to think scientists knew what they were doing when they used predatory journals. Apparently not all and we should help them. There should be a way to retract an article without needing the assistance of a predatory journal and making them even richer. There was not much information on the investigation in English, so I wrote a blog post to give a summary, although most of my post is commentary. If 1% of German scientists have participated (at least once) that is a waste of money, but the amount of money we burn unnecessarily on the legacy publishing system is so much more. Open review may help reduce the problem a little. But one of the predatory publishers featured actually uses open review. The two examples I have studied the reviews were limited to some edit requests, although the papers were deeply flawed, but only highly dedicated people looking at the reviews would see that. I think we can solve this problem best with post publication review. Then the scientific community can change their assessment of an article when it has been studied in detail and any review errors can be corrected. So this would be a small argument in favour of post-publication review. Small because I do not see predatory journals as as big a problem as legacy journals. http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2018/07/german-investigative-reporter-peer-review-scandal.html On 2018-07-25 16:53, Richard Poynder wrote: > Dear Falk, > > Thank you for responding. Unfortunately, what you say does not comfort > me and, I would think, would not comfort anyone who has become a > victim of a predatory publisher. I say this because: > > 1. Whitelists like DOAJ are not perfect and, like Think.Check.Submit, > offer no remedy or solution for those who have become victims. > Likewise, I cannot see how OpenAPC or open contracts are going to help > victims of predatory publishing. > > 2. I find it odd that you should respond by saying that there is no > evidence that the problem is increasing. Is it not enough that there > are victims and that no one seems willing to help them? > > 3. In my post, I say exactly what I mean when I use the term predatory > publisher. By your response, I can only assume you are saying either > that a) you don't agree that there are any publishers who fall within > my definition or b) you don't believe there are enough of them to > warrant trying to help them? > > I have no idea what you mean by "Crusaderism and missing checks and > balances". > > Richard Poynder > > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 14:50, Reckling, Falk <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Richard,____ > > __ __ > > 1) A number of actions are mentioned in the response, the most > important one is to support DOAJ, to publish publication costs via > Open APC and make publishing contracts openly in the future. ____ > > __ __ > > 2) There is no reliable empirical evidence that the phenomenon of > predatory publishing has increased massively over time.____ > > __ __ > > 3) There is still a problem of definition: Currently all sorts of > things are subsumed under predatory publishing. This ranges from > naive, under-funded, unprofessional, joke to profit-seeking and > fake. That was one reason why Beall's black list was useless, not to > mention Crusaderism and missing checks and balances.____ > > __ __ > > In short, we should observe and scientifically analyse the > phenomenon, but also not overestimate and panic.____ > > __ __ > > Best ____ > > > Falk____ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > *Von:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> *Im > Auftrag von *Richard Poynder > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2018 15:22 > *An:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Betreff:* Re: [GOAL] Predatory Publishing____ > > __ __ > > Thanks for posting this Falk. I have yet to see concerted action > taken anywhere to support researchers who become victims of > predatory publishers. ____ > > __ __ > > I also do not think I see any recognition of their plight, or > details of what is being planned to help them, in your document. > Perhaps I missed it. ____ > > __ __ > > Anyway, I have blogged about the topic here:____ > > __ __ > > > https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/07/falling-prey-to-predatory-oa-publ > isher.html____ > > __ __ > > Richard Poynder ____ > > __ __ > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 13:51 Reckling, Falk, <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:____ > > The Austrian Science Board and the FWF Respond to the Recent > Media Reports on the Questionable Practices of Several Scholarly > Publishers____ > > > https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/news-and-media-relations/news/detail/nid/20180724-2314/ > ____ > > ____ > > ___________________________________ > Falk Reckling, PhD > Head of Department > Strategy - Policy, Evaluation, Analysis > > FWF Austrian Science Fund > 1090 Vienna, Sensengasse 1, Austria > T: +43 1 505 67 40 8861 > M: +43 664 530 73 68 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > CV via ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1326-1766____ > > ____ > > ____ > > * > **BE OPEN - Science & Society Festival* > 50 years of top research funded by FWF > Sep 8 to 12, 2018 | Vienna | www.fwf.ac.at/beopen > <https://www.fwf.ac.at/beopen>____ > > > > ____ > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal____ > > * > BE OPEN - Science & Society Festival* > 50 years of top research funded by FWF > Sep 8 to 12, 2018 | Vienna | www.fwf.ac.at/beopen > <https://www.fwf.ac.at/beopen> > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > -- > Richard Poynder > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- <>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> Victor Venema Chair WMO TT-HOM & ISTI-POST WMO, Commission for Climatology, Task Team on Homogenization http://tinyurl.com/TT-HOM ISTI Parallel Observations Science Team http://tinyurl.com/ISTI-POST Grassroots scientific publishing http://grassrootspublishing.wordpress.com/ Meteorological Institute University of Bonn Auf dem Huegel 20 53121 Bonn Germany E-mail: [email protected] http://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/victor http://variable-variability.blogspot.com Twitter: @variabilityblog Tel: +49 (0)228 73 5185 Fax: +49 (0)228 73 5188 There is no need to answer my mails in your free time. <>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
