<div dir="ltr">On 12 October 2013 20:28, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com" target="_blank">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">It is a specific problem of </span><em style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">peer review standards of pay-to-publish Gold OA journals</em><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> 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></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><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></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div></div></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">G</div></div>