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