[BOAI] Re: Published today: Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2013

[David Prosser]

Thanks Jeffrey, it is interesting to see more details on what you perceive to be the risks.

However, I take a different view.  I see 'predatory' publishers as being a small corner of the publishing landscape.  A rather grubby and unpleasant corner, and one that you are shining a powerful spotlight on, but small nevertheless.

It is true that the predators are setting lots of traps, but I don't think that - as a proportion of the total number of papers published each year - many are falling into that trap.  You mention that some publishers are setting up hundreds of journals.  True, but how many papers are being published?  Isn't one of your own triggers for concern the sight of hundreds of journals with very few articles?  If these journals have few articles in them then surely by definition it is a small problem.

Some naive researchers may be tempted by the honeyed words of the predators and fall into the trap - but journals rely on reputation to survive and those researchers are not going to go back once gulled.  There may be a living to be made from fooling the naive (thus was it ever so), but this is not a scalable model and so will not undermine the whole of scholarly communications.

As well as the naive there are also the willingly preyed upon.  Those who deliberately seek a low-quality journal where they think that they will be able to get their crack-pot theories into print.  There have always been such journals - now it is the author who pays for them rather than the subscriber.  I'm not sure that is a bad thing!  But are there more bad papers than there were before?  We now that there are more retracted papers due to discovery of fraud and error, but these appear as much in subscription based journals as in other.  I would contend that a loss of faith in the peer review process poses a greater threat to the integrity of the scholarly communications process than 'predactory' publishers.

Best wishes

David





On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:11, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:

> David,
>  
> Good questions -- please see my responses below.
>  
> From: boai-forum-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:boai-forum-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David Prosser
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:58 AM
> To: boai-forum at ecs.soton.ac.uk
> Subject: [BOAI] Re: Published today: Beall's List of Predatory Publishers 2013
>  
> 'The entire scholarly publishing system is in danger of eroding due to the increasing influence of predatory publishing.'
>  
> How much influence does 'predatory publishing' represent?  
>  
> I think it represents a significant influence, especially in Asia and Africa. The number of predatory publishers and independent journals is growing daily. Some launch with over one hundred journals at once. The publishers engage in massive spam campaigns to attract editorial board members and manuscript submissions. Many prey on junior researchers and graduate students with personalized messages praising their earlier work and inviting them to submit a new manuscript, without mentioning the author fee.
>  
> What percentage of the total number of papers published in OA journals over the past year do the papers published in these journals represent?
>  
> I don't think this datum exists anywhere; this is a great research question.
>  
> And what would the percentage need to be for us to seriously believe that the entire scholarly publishing system is in danger of eroding?
>  
> I believe that percentage has been met; that's why I made the statement. The COPE guidelines stress that publishers, editors, and researchers must "maintain the integrity of the academic record." This standard is not being met among the predatory publishers, who ignore publishing standards and ethics to compete for author fees.
>  
> Also, because research is cumulative, we must be concerned when any pseudo-science enters the scholarly communication system. This is happening at an alarming rate. As an example, I am preparing a blog post about an article entitled "New Theories, Models, and Explanations of Science"  published in the International Journal of Science and Technology.
>  
> This cosmology article offers a "theory of everything" in six sentences at the end yet lacks any references. It's complete bunk. Predatory journals are erasing and eroding the boundary between science and non-science.  
>  
> Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
> Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
> Auraria Library
> University of Colorado Denver
> 1100 Lawrence St.
> Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
> (303) 556-5936
> jeffrey.beall at ucdenver.edu
>  
> <image001.jpg>
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
> On 6 Dec 2012, at 17:48, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:
> 
> 
> [Please excuse duplicate postings]
>  
> Today I am releasing the 2013 versions of my lists of predatory publishers and journals. Please seehttp://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2013/
>  
> This year's list of predatory publishers includes over 225 highly-questionable scholarly publishing operations. Last year's list included only 23 publishers, and the 2010 list had about 18.
>  
> This year's list of predatory stand-alone journals has 106 titles. (The previous year's list did not include stand-alone titles). I continuously updates these lists on my blog Scholarly Open Access, http://scholarlyoa.com, throughout the year.
>  
> The increase in predatory publishers from 18 to 225 in two years demonstrates the increasing scale of the problem. The entire scholarly publishing system is in danger of eroding due to the increasing influence of predatory publishing.
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
> Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
> Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
> Auraria Library
> University of Colorado Denver
> 1100 Lawrence St.
> Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
> (303) 556-5936
> jeffrey.beall at ucdenver.edu
>  
> <image001.jpg>
>  
>  
>  
> <ATT00001..txt>
>  
> <ATT00001..txt>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20121213/b3e12fed/attachment-0001.html