From: Michael Mabe <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 08:12:41 +0100
List members might be interested to know that STM takes the issue of
unprofessional behaviour very seriously. As the leading international
trade body for academic and professional publishers we strive for the
highest professional standards in the publishing industry. We vet
every candidate for membership generally and with reference to our
Code of Conduct. We have turned down a number of recent applications
where we felt candidates did not yet correspond to the standards that
authors, readers and customers should reasonably expect. We do not
discriminate over business models and have open access publishers as
members as well as those using non open access models or a mixture.
I do think it important that in discussing this issue we stick to
clear objective criteria like those listed in Ina Smith's post,
although I would respectfully suggest membership of STM as a criterion
as well!
Best, Michael
Michael A Mabe
Chief Executive Officer
International Association of STM Publishers
Prama House, 267 Banbury Road
OXFORD, OX2 7HT, UK
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.stm-assoc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: "Armbruster, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 03:19:54 -0800
A few comments
1. The anecdotal evidence collected suggests that the problem exists
and is growing. The perception that you must 'publish or perish' may
drive scholars to submit to (new) publishers/journals without vetting
them. Moreover, some publishers/journals seem to be faking their
credentials - making it hard for the unsuspecting scholar to detect
the scam easily. Importantly and urgently, a more thorough
investigation is needed.
2. Open access advocates and their organizations (e.g. OASPA, DOAJ,
SPARC, KE) should be most interested to establish criteria and
evidence for respectable open access publishing. The whole business
may suffer heavy damage if there are more 'predatory' open access
journals than real ones.
3. The above points are reinforced by noting that Jeffrey Beall last
December had a watch list (Hindawi, MedKnow Publication, PAGEPress,
Versita Open) - much disputed by commentators
(http://metadata.posterous.com/tag/predatoryopenaccessjournals) but
that this list seems to have been dropped from the new blog (without
explanation) and substituted by a new list to be examined
(http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/03/07/publishers-to-examine/). Clearly,
one individual alone cannot establish criteria, cases and evidence.
Chris Armbruster
|
