[GOAL] Re: Bohannon study: No damage

[Jacinto Dávila]

Well, if he is actually in favour of OA and this is not a publicity stunt,
I will have to check my English dictionary.

*Robert Kiley* @*robertkiley* <https://twitter.com/robertkiley>
17h<https://twitter.com/robertkiley/status/389674803742785536>

Bohannon on Radio5 expresses concern that OA business model promotes fraud.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03cnqwf …
<http://t.co/pDYqyi2knW>(clip starts at 43.17)
#*openaccess* <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23openaccess&src=hash>



On 13 October 2013 17:30, Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12 October 2013 20:28, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is a specific problem of *peer review standards of pay-to-publish
>> Gold OA journals* at a time when there is still far too little OA and
>> when most journals are still subscription journals, most authors are still
>> confused about OA, many think that OA is synonymous with Gold OA journals,
>> and, most important, there are not yet enough effective mandates from
>> research funders and institutions that require authors to make all their
>> papers OA by depositing them in their institutional OA repositories ("Green
>> OA"), regardless of where they were published.
>>
>
> Telling authors that pay-to-publish Gold OA journals are bad (when they
> are not per se, just the known predatory ones), and then mandating that
> they make their papers "open access" (well, public access, by depositing to
> the repository), is hardly going to make them less confused.
>
>
>> And each round of peer review (which peers do for free, by the way, so
>> the only real cost is the qualified editor who evaluates the submissions,
>> picks the referees, and adjudicates the referee reports -- plus the referee
>> tracking and communication software) would be paid for on a "no-fault"
>> basis, *per round of peer review*, whether the outcome was acceptance,
>> rejection, or revision and resubmission for another (paid) round of peer
>> review.
>>
>> Unlike with today's Fool's Gold junk journals that were caught by
>> Bohannon's sting, not only will no-fault post-Green, Fair-Gold peer-review
>> remove any incentive to accept lower quality papers (and thereby reduce the
>> reputation of the journal) -- because the journal is paid for the peer
>> review service in any case -- but it will help make Fair-Gold OA costs even
>> lower, per round of peer review, because it will not wrap the costs of the
>> rejected or multiply revised and re-refereed papers into the cost of each
>> accepted paper, as they do now.
>>
>
> Nope. It will replace the incentive to publish lower quality papers with
> minimal peer review, with an incentive to run it through a couple of peer
> review rounds. And as you can't actually force journals to adopt this
> model, then there will always remain predatory journals that provide a
> means for lower quality papers to be published.
>
> G
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
Jacinto Dávila
http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131014/dd037e07/attachment.html