<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I don't follow the logic of this.<div><br></div><div>Authors want to get the prestige of publication in journals. Authors of very poor papers know they can only get published in journals where the peer review is lax (perhaps to the point of non-existence).</div><div><br></div><div>Even if they make their papers Green OA, authors of poor papers will still want 'prestige', so they will still look for a journal that will publish their papers. Whatever the status of green OA, poor journals will continue to exist for as long as their are authors writing poor papers.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div> </div><div><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On 12 Oct 2013, at 20:28, Stevan Harnad wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style=""><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">The inevitable sensationalism inspired by the Bohannon Sting will soon die down, doing no damage to science, scholarship or peer review. And insofar as OA is concerned, it helps bring out an point about pay-to-publish junk journals riding the growing wave of clamor for OA:</span></div>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div>I would be surprised if there weren't subscription journals that would have accepted the </span><a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2013/10/live-chat-exploring-wild-west-open-access" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Bohannon bogus paper</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> for publication too. </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">But I would be even more surprised if as high a proportion of subscription journals -- matched for field, age, size and impact-factor -- would have accepted Bohannon's bogus paper as did the pay-to-publish OA journals ("Gold OA"). </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Subscription journals have to maintain enough of an appearance of peer review to sustain their subscriptions. Pay-to-publish Gold OA journals just have to maintain enough of an appearance of peer review to attract authors (and maybe the lure of pay-to-publish is enough to attract many authors in our publish-or-perish world without even the appearance of peer review, especially when the journal choice is justified by the fashionable allure -- or excuse -- of the journal's being an OA journal).</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">This problem would not be remedied by just lowering Gold OA journal publication fees. </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Nor is it a symptom of a general problem with peer review (though peer review could certainly do with some upgrading in any case). </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">It is a specific problem of </span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">peer review standards of pay-to-publish Gold OA journals</em><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> 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. </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">If it were mandatory to make all papers Green OA, all authors would simply deposit their peer-reviewed final drafts in their institutional OA repositories, free for all, immediately upon acceptance for publication. They would not have to pay to publish in Gold OA journals unless they especially wished to. Once all journal articles were being made Green OA in this way, institutions would be able to cancel all their journal subscriptions, which would in turn force all journals to cut costs and convert to Gold OA publishing at a much lower fee than is being charged now by OA journals: post-Green Fair Gold instead of today's pre-Green Fool's Gold. </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">But, most important, the reason the Fair Gold fee would be much lower is that the only remaining service that journals (all of them having become Gold OA) would be performing then, post-Green, would be </span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">peer review</em><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">. All access-provision and archiving would be offloaded onto the global network of Green OA institutional repositories -- so no more print or PDF editions or their costs. And for just peer review, journals would no longer be charging for publishing (which would then just amount to a tag certifying that the article had been accepted by journal J): they would be charging only for the peer review. </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">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, <i>per round of peer review</i>, whether the outcome was acceptance, rejection, or revision and resubmission for another (paid) round of peer review.</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">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.</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">So post-Green Fair Gold will not only reduce costs but it will raise peer-review standards.</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">None of this is possible, however, unless Green OA is effectively mandated by all research institutions and funders worldwide, first. </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Harnad, S. (2013) </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1059-.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">The Science Peer-Review "Sting": Where the Fault Lies</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">. </span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Open Access Archivangelism</em><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> 1059</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><u style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">________</u><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> (2010) </span><a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">.</span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> D-Lib Magazine</em><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> 16 (7/8). </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><u style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">______</u><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> (2007) </span><a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">. In: Anna Gacs. </span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age</em><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">. L'Harmattan. 99-106. </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><u style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">______</u><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> (1998) </span><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">The invisible hand of peer review</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">. </span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Nature</em><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> [online] (5 Nov. 1998), </span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Exploit Interactive</em><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> 5 (2000): and in Shatz, B. (2004) (ed.) </span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry</em><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">. Rowland & Littlefield. Pp. 235-242.</span><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Heather Morrison <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca" target="_blank">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">The Bohannon "study" published in Science may have consequences beyond what was intended. While Bohannon and Science may have meant this as an attack on open access, this study could easily be picked up by those who oppose science and scholarship.<br>
<br>
For example, the Economist article begins with a focus on the Sokal hoax; this was a subscription journal, not OA, so not focusing too strongly on OA is much appreciated. However, this means that an Economist article is focusing on a critique of scholarly peer review.<br>
<br>
Similarly, a CBC article focuses on the problems with peer review, rather than problems with a few new journals that happen to be OA:<br>
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/10/11/why-a-harvard-scientist-wrote-a-bogus-paper-and-submitted-it-for-publication/" target="_blank">http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/10/11/why-a-harvard-scientist-wrote-a-bogus-paper-and-submitted-it-for-publication/</a><br>
<br>
This article illustrates what I consider to be a potential danger to all of scholarship / science, not just open access. Here we have a newspaper article quoting a study as saying that the majority of peer-reviewed journals will accept an article that is obviously fabricated. It is not hard to imagine newspaper articles like this being used as fodder for climate change denial types.<br>
<br>
To me, this in itself illustrates the need for careful quality control in scholarly communication. It is unethical for Bohannon and Science to publish an article that could so easily be misinterpreted in this way and used as arguments by opponents of science and scholarship. This is a bigger problem for science and scholarship than all of the predatory journals exposed by the Bohannon sting.<br>
<br>
best,<br>
<br>
--<br>
Dr. Heather Morrison<br>
Assistant Professor<br>
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies<br>
University of Ottawa<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html" target="_blank">http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html</a><br>
<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>