[GOAL] Re: Whose business is it anyhow?

Fri Jun 21 19:30:45 BST 2013

While "Emerald publishes many titles in the field of Library and Information Science/Studies (LIS)", its Wikipedia entry suggests that there may be some underlying problems:

"In 2004, Philip Davis of Cornell University found extensive covert duplication of articles in Emerald/MCB University Press journals, including at least 409 examples of articles from sixty-seven journals that were republished without notification that they were previously published. He found examples of triplicate publishing, as well as journals that contained no original content, but were filled with articles submitted to other journals.[4]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_note-4> He published a follow-up article reporting that the owners of Emerald were simultaneously acting as authors, editors, and managers of these journals, duplicating not only the work of others but their own as well.[5]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_note-5> Emerald undertook its own study and identified 560 republished papers from 1989 to 2004, 1.1 percent of its total database. Davis argued that "whatever the number, no amount of premeditated covert article duplication is acceptable".[6]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_note-6>

*  ^<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_ref-4> Davis, Philip. "The Ethics of Republishing: A Case Study of Emerald/MCB University Press Journals"<http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/2572>. Library Resources & Technical Services (ALA) 49 (2): 72-78. Retrieved 2008-08-02.
*  ^<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_ref-5> Davis, Philip. "Article duplication in Emerald/MCB journals is more extensive than first reported: Possible conflicts of financial and functional interests are uncovered". Library Resources & Technical Services (ALA) 49 (3): 148-150. hdl<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handle_System>:1813/2574<http://hdl.handle.net/1813%2F2574>..
*  ^<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_ref-6> "Online Databases: Duplication Is Ubiquitous"<http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA512212.html>. Retrieved 2008-08-02.

If memory serves, there were also some significant price hikes for some of the 'library studies' journals that were acquired by Emerald.  They also have a publishing partnership with IFLA but only ~40% of their titles on this subject are indexed by ISI.

Dana L. Roth
Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423  fax 626-792-7540
dzrlib at library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of DeDe Dawson
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:38 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: scholcomm at ala.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Whose business is it anyhow?

Stevan,

Please don't forget that librarians are often also researchers and authors in their own right. And Emerald publishes many titles in the field of Library and Information Science/Studies (LIS). So Emerald, in addressing librarians, is in fact addressing the researchers/authors that are submitting to their publications.

I suspect the Emerald communication might have been in response to Heather's message to the scholcomm list from several days ago that I copied and pasted below.
-DeDe
University of Saskatchewan
University Library

Heather Morrison's email:

LIS publisher Emerald has introduced a 24-month embargo on authors whose institutions have open access mandates, according to Richard Poynder on Open and Shut:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html

This is a significant backtrack from what was a really good open access archiving policy.

As of today, there are 146 titles listed under Library and Information Studies in the Directory of Open Access Journals, and most say Publication Fee - No:
http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpId=129&uiLanguage=en

Librarians, Emerald current and potential editors, authors, and reviewers, perhaps it is time to ditch this "it's about the profit" publisher in favour of journals that prioritize sharing of our knowledge? If none of the current DOAJ titles fit your scholarly niche - why not start your own?

best,

Heather G. Morrison
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com<mailto:amsciforum at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Wagner, A. Ben <abwagner at buffalo.edu<mailto:abwagner at buffalo.edu>> wrote:

I have not followed the Emerald issue since it is not a publisher I deal with as a librarian or a scholar, so I will not comment directly on that issue.  However, at least from a U.S. perspective and speaking much more generally, I'm not sure complaints from U.S. academics about businesses being business-focused will carry much weight. From where I sit, academia is getting more and more like big business every day with enterprise/start up zones, ROI on research, running leaner and meaner, pursue of grants and industry partnerships while teaching sometimes suffer (though that is always denied), looking for every opportunity to license/commercialize research, and I could go on.  This isn't necessarily all bad.  Just pointing out that academia, again at least in the U.S., is a business as much as any corporation, imho.  So I ask the question.  In academia, is business trumping scholarship? So which is the pot and which is the kettle?

Yes, publishing is a business.

Yes, universities are (alas) becoming more and more like businesses.

But research is research.

And researchers are researchers.

And research is funded by tax-payers.

And the uptake, usage, applications, productivity and progress of scientific and scholarly research are obstructed by access barriers.

So let's not obscure the real contingencies by saying "it's all just business."

What's not evident to me is why Emerald is addressing its attempt at self-justification to libraries, when it is their authors' research that is at issue:

Libraries are the clients for Emerald's product.

But authors are Emerald's suppliers. And they supply free of charge. And so do the peers who do the peer review for Emerald journals.

So please, Emerald, address researchers and tax-payers, not your business clientele: Librarians have absolutely nothing to do with Emerald policy on author self-archiving.

 Stevan Harnad

Views expressed herein are my personal reviews and not reflective of my institution, administration, management, or faculties.

--A. Ben Wagner, Sciences Librarian
University at Buffalo
abwagner at buffalo.edu<mailto:abwagner at buffalo.edu>

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130621/7a0b4e22/attachment.html 