From: Michael Magoulias <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:25:32 +0000

Jim,

I question your point 2. Nothing has been less a matter of sheer
chance than the growth of predatory publishing in academic journals.
One might just as well say that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had
nothing to do with the financial crisis or that the unforgivably lax
gun laws in the U.S. have no connection with  the mass killings that
seem to take place every other week in this country.

The most obvious hurdle that your argument needs to get over is the
fact that the explosion of predatory publishing only took place after
the establishment of BMC and PLOS One. True, correlation doesn't prove
causation, but then an alternative and more compelling causal
explanation has to be provided. I'm skeptical that there is one, but
am willing to be persuaded.

What BMC et al. did -- whether intentionally or not is of little
importance -- is to change the publishing model from one in which
clear and concentrated editorial judgement was the determining factor,
to a model in which the author's payment of a fee was one -- not
necessarily the only -- requirement.

Once that door is opened, you have a vanity publishing model, and no
matter how strident the attempts to convince skeptics that real peer
review is going on, there will always be the suspicion that in too
many cases publication is simply a function of pay-to-play.

This suspicion moves closer to certainty once editorial policies are
promoted that explicitly urge "soundness" rather than "significance."
It's one of the minor mysteries of the 21st century why this
repudiation of significance has not met with more outrage amongst the
learned, especially in institutions that consider themselves members
of an elite. I suspect it's fascination with the Kardashians.

What needs to be recognized is that instead of solving the problem of
commercial dominance of scientific publishing, Open Access has if
anything added to it while creating the new problem of predatory
publishing. It wouldn't be the first time, after all, that a quick
trip to Hell was facilitated by the subway of good intentions.

Michael

Michael Magoulias
University of Chicago Press Journals



> On Oct 1, 2015, at 6:52 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 07:14:45 -0700
>
> https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/01/study-finds-huge-increase-articles-published-predatory-journals
>
> The debate over the relative numbers and the application of the
> 'predatory' label will continue, of course, but two things seem clear:
> (1) when the bills are paid by parties interested in increasing the
> number of articles published and lowering the quality, the system will
> inevitably produce more lower quality articles -- how many is
> debatable and what to do about it likewise; (2) it's an accident of
> history that the implementation of that model of publishing comes at a
> moment when large numbers of new players are entering the market from
> developing countries looking for places to publish their articles, but
> this accident increases the new pressure on the system.
>
> My point is to suggest that finger-pointing and cluck-clucking and
> exhortations to virtuous behavior are probably irrelevant.  Real and
> important facts are changing in the way we do scientific publishing
> and we should recognize those and plan systemically for ways to
> mitigate a problem that will not be wished away. How can we better
> insulate peer review from the financial incentives that press for
> easier acceptance of more?
>
> Jim O'Donnell
> ASU