From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 22:27:45 -0500

Of course, the world is not quite so simple and clear-cut as Ken makes
it out to be. E.g., there are some journals where the peer review is
done by the publisher's staff, who are themselves experts in the field
with Ph.D.s. And when we get to talking about OA monograph publishing,
then all peer review (except that done by the editors of special book
series) is done by the publishing staff in conjunction with the
external reviewers whom they engage. And that kind of peer review is
compensated, not done for free.

Beall's complaint is not that predatory publishers are profiting but
that they are extracting money from the system of scholarly
communication while providing no significant service in return. At
least "greedy" commercial publishers are providing real services that
have value!

Sandy


> 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