From: Charlie Rapple <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:06:22 +0100

Hi Jim, et al,

I agree with your view on the irrelevance or ineffectiveness of
finger-pointing and cluck-clucking. The new Think. Check. Submit.
campaign seems like a practical and realistic attempt to start trying
to address the problem with education rather than exhortation. Its
launch (yesterday) coincides with another recently published study
which, reflecting your point about large numbers of new authors from
developing countries, finds that three quarters of authors in the
predatory publications it studied were from Asia and Africa.

I just posted more thoughts on Think. Check. Submit. in the Scholarly Kitchen:
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/10/01/think-check-submit-how-to-have-trust-in-your-publisher/

The article I mention is:

Shen, C. & Björk, B.. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal
study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine.
13:230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

Think. Check. Submit. is at:
http://thinkchecksubmit.org

It doesn’t (yet?) start to address some of the underlying challenges
i.e. the pressures to publish and the market this creates for
“predatory" journals, but I see both TCS and the Coalition for
Responsible Publishing Resources (http://www.rprcoalition.org) as
evidence of a new wave of practical action and outreach.

All the best,

Charlie.

Charlie Rapple
Co-Founder | Kudos
www.growkudos.com
[log in to unmask]



On 2 Oct 2015, at 00:41, 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