LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 28 May 2013 18:05:38 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 19:38:35 -0500

I think Ken trades on an ambiguity here. Sure, in one sense peer
review "rests" with the journal editor and the reviewers he chooses,
in that it is their responsibility to carry out the peer review. But
no reputable publisher is going to sign a contract with an editor that
does not include a clause making the proper conduct of peer review a
requirement of the job, so the ultimate responsibility for making sure
that peer review does get done "rests" with the publisher, who will
invoke the contractual clause if it is discovered that peer review is
not being properly done.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:41:28 +0400
>
> Sandy says:
> ---
>
> Perhaps because, for a truly predatory OA publisher, no service is
> being rendered (no real peer review, no copyediting, etc.) whereas a
> traditional publisher may still be delivering print as well as
> electronic and actually conducting true peer review as well as
> providing copyediting?
>
> ----
>
> I'm glad that assumption was qualified with a "perhaps".  That sounds
> nice, but what if an OA journal DOES render these services?  Beall's
> list contains lists of publishers, so, if a journal can prove this
> (assuming there are criteria for this proof), it still sits on his
> list simply because the publisher is listed there.
>
> Because one of the fundamental flaws in the list is that it assumes
> things like peer-review rest with the publisher.  (I'm basing that
> statement on the fact that publishers are listed on the grounds that
> their journals appear to lack peer-review).  But peer-review rests
> with the editor and reviewers, not with the publisher.  Beall either
> does not know that, or simply chooses to ignore it.
>
> Disclaimer: Editor of an OA journal.
>
> Regards
>
> Ken
>
> ------
>
> Dr. Ken Masters
> Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
> Medical Education Unit
> College of Medicine & Health Sciences
> Sultan Qaboos University
> Sultanate of Oman
> E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education

ATOM RSS1 RSS2