<div>HansP</div><div>>>We simply have to find a better solution than an(!) "organization". In<br>this context, I am also frightened by PMR's advocacy of "regulation".<br>Peter, do you really think that expanded (and ever-expanding)<br>
regulation is to the advantage of *research*? Even if we agree on<br>predators being around - OA as well as non-OA publishers! - we should<br>not endanger the freedom and innovative power of science just for the<br>sake of battling those.<br>
</div><div>For a start I'm talking about things like clear licences, clear undertakings to authors, readers and funders. At present publishers can create whatever they like - it's often self contradictory and inpoerable. There is huge amounts of fuzz and fudge about what "Open Access" means operationally. </div>
<div> </div><div>If we are paying 3000+ dollars for the pubication and reading of an article don't we have rights?? Or do we trust the publishers absolutely because they are good chaps and fundamentally on the side of academia?? I don't believe either. </div>
<div> </div><div>As an example, hybrid gold is meant to offest subscriptions fees. Is there any objective evidence that this is happening? Or do we trust the publishers because of their wonderful track record?<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Richard Poynder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ricky@richardpoynder.co.uk" target="_blank">ricky@richardpoynder.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">
For sure, there is no easy solution. But should the research community give<br>
up because the task seems difficult?<br>
<br></blockquote><div>Exactly. We have neglected this for 10 years so it's a complete mess. It won't get better unless we DO something. At the least we need clear factula information about practices.</div><div> </div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">
Moreover, this need not be about forming commissions of eminent researchers.<br>
There has been some discussion of the issues and challenges here:<br>
<a href="http://svpow.com/2012/12/06/crowdsourcing-a-database-of-predatory-oa-journals/" target="_blank">http://svpow.com/2012/12/06/crowdsourcing-a-database-of-predatory-oa-journal<br>
s/</a>. Note that the proposal is to use a crowd-sourced solution, not a<br>
top-down organisation. In this scenario the role of any organisation would<br>
perhaps simply be to provide whatever funding was needed to create and<br>
manage the necessary platform, and to give the initiative some legitimacy.<br>
<br>
You will see that a number of people have proposed that the task should come<br>
under the aegis of DOAJ.<br>
<br>
And bear in mind that doing nothing leaves the status quo in place, which is<br>
a situation in which a lone librarian decides for the entire research<br>
community what journals are good, and what journals are bad. Is that really<br>
satisfactory?<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>And a lone graduate student compiles a list of Open Access practtices.</div><div> <br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>
University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>
</div></div>