From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:14:42 +0100

I just do not entirely agree with this Ken. I speak as someone who has had
responsibility for hundreds of journals but finished my publishing career in
2010.

Now in some reputable companies there are no editors-in-chief and the final
decisions are made by in-house staff. I am told that decisions are mostly
easy to make on the basis of reports from referees

In many disreputable companies there may be an editor listed and there may
be an editorial board but are these people being asked to referee papers
and, if so, how is the decision to publish being reached? We do not know. I
have in the past asked editorial board members for new OA journals if they
were given anything to do and they have been surprised to find if they are
on the board. I was interested because the editorial board members were
people I knew and who were active in journals I was responsible for. I
wondered whether their new jobs were taking up time I wanted from them. Of
course I know that most good referees review for a number of journals.

It is more complicated now for all journals. When I started in publishing we
used to say to editors - how you decide on what is worthy to be published is
up to you and your referees. Our work starts when you deliver the
manuscript. Now the actual duties are described as Sandy pointed out in an
agreement and the publishers can see at least how quickly the refereeing is
being done through online editorial questions. Editors are called to account
or at least advised. There are clauses allowing dismissal of editors by the
publisher and maintenance of quality is one reason for dismissal - though I
am sure this is rarely invoked.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE
Sent: 30 May 2013 02:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: More on the $1 Billion Lawsuit Against Jeffey Beall

From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 08:22:56 +0400

Hi All

No ambiguity at all:

Peer-review: domain of the editor and reviewers.
Publishing: domain of the publisher.

Sandy's comment only reinforces the fact that, if the publisher feels that
the peer-review is of a too low standard, then the publisher can complain.
I'm in favour of that.  But it does not say that any publisher complains if
the peer-review process is of too high standard.  If there is evidence of
that, then that is a different matter entirely, but, until that is alleged,
blaming the publisher for bad peer-review is non-sensical.  Bad peer-review
rests with the editor.

This is particularly important because Beall's list makes a big deal about
the money earned by the OA commercial publishers.  (Naturally, I'm excluding
the multi-millions profit made by the "non-predatory"
commercial publishers).  In order for this earning to be significant in the
discussion of peer-review and quality, it would be necessary to demonstrate
that:

- the publisher performs peer-review and/or lowers the level of peer-review
expected from the editor, or

- the editor in charge of peer-review receives financial benefit from any
paper accepted.

Until that can be demonstrated, moaning about the fact that OA commercial
publishers are trying to make a profit is strange.  What part of
"commercial" is not clear?  Commercial Non-OA publishers are also not
charities.  Their goal is to make a profit.  I would be surprised if all OA
commercial publishers also weren't trying to make a profit.  Profit is not
the issue.  It's the methods, and these needs to be described properly,
backed up with facts, not vague unease and innuendo.

Regards

Ken

------

Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman



On 29 May 2013 02:05, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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