[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

Wed Sep 24 17:05:38 BST 2014

I think that every article should be read on it’s own merits and it should not have value assigned to it just because it has managed to get into a certain club (journal).  It is saddening to me that this suggestion should be considered even vaguely radical.

When Science carried out its ‘Sting’ on open access titles there were journals on Beall’s list that rejected the paper.  Other not on his list (including one published under the auspices of Elsevier ) accepted it.  I’m all for context, but if we are considering a researcher’s future and funding surely we owe it to them to judge them on their own merits and not on the arbitrary criteria of one chap in Colorado.

David

On 24 Sep 2014, at 10:40, Hamaker, Charles <cahamake at UNCC.EDU<mailto:cahamake at UNCC.EDU>> wrote:

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 <dzrlib at library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzrlib at library.caltech.edu><mailto:dzrlib at 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
dzrlib at library.caltech.edu<mailto: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><mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> [goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org><mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org>] on behalf of David Prosser [david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk><mailto:david.prosser at 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 <anupdas2072 at gmail.com<mailto:anupdas2072 at gmail.com><mailto:anupdas2072 at gmail.com><mailto:anupdas2072 at 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 at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org><mailto:GOAL at eprints.org><mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

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