From: Steve Oberg <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:23:48 +0000

Rick and others,

A key aspect of this whole discussion for me is that the word
"predatory" has been tightly linked to the words "open access" when it
comes to journals. I think this is a problem. Part of my takeaway from
what Kevin wrote is that other, non open access journals have the same
or very similar characteristics. And I think that's an important
point. It reminds me of hearing some people dismiss open access as
equal to poor quality or not peer-reviewed or any number of other
canards that are used to directly or subtly undermine the open access
movement. It's weird to me that those people won't acknowledge or
cannot see that some of the things for which they criticize open
access as a form of publication are also things that can and do exist
in for profit publications.

Steve

Steve Oberg
Assistant Professor of Library Science
Group Leader for Resource Description and Digital Initiatives
Wheaton College (IL)
+1 (630) 752-5852

NASIG President


On Jun 20, 2017, at 8:43 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 04:52:27 +0000

Kevin, I think you’re actually describing two different spectra of
problematic publishing practices, not a single one. One is the
spectrum of competence: some journals do a better job than others of
rigorously publishing quality scholarship, but those that are honestly
trying and failing to do so are not engaged in the same kind of
behavior as what genuinely predatory journals do.

Genuinely predatory publishing isn’t a matter of incompetence; it’s a
matter of deliberate deception, and I think there’s a pretty dark line
separating honest incompetence from active and willful deception. That
being said, when it comes to predatory practices I do think there’s a
spectrum of egregiousness. For example, a journal that fudges its
impact factor a little bit, or that accepts a few subpar papers in
order to increase its APC revenue, is at one end of the egregiousness
spectrum, while a journal that claims to have a high impact factor
when in fact it has none at all, or claims to provide rigorous peer
review when it in fact provides no peer review at all, or deliberately
populates its editorial masthead with the names of people who haven’t
agreed to be on it, or deliberately hides its APC charges until after
the author has submitted her paper, etc., is at the other end of the
egregiousness spectrum — and is also engaged in a very different kind
of behavior than one that honestly tries to provide competent services
but fails to some degree.

I guess what I’m saying is that I do think there are (at least) two
different “buckets” of bad publishing behavior, and that the
difference between them matters very much. I think if we lump the
honest but low-quality journals in with those that are actively trying
to deceive, we do a serious disservice to the journals that are
genuinely trying to do the right thing.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
[log in to unmask]