From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 04:52:27 +0000

Kevin, I think you’re actually describing two different spectra of
problematic publishing practices, not a single one. One is the
spectrum of competence: some journals do a better job than others of
rigorously publishing quality scholarship, but those that are honestly
trying and failing to do so are not engaged in the same kind of
behavior as what genuinely predatory journals do.

Genuinely predatory publishing isn’t a matter of incompetence; it’s a
matter of deliberate deception, and I think there’s a pretty dark line
separating honest incompetence from active and willful deception. That
being said, when it comes to predatory practices I do think there’s a
spectrum of egregiousness. For example, a journal that fudges its
impact factor a little bit, or that accepts a few subpar papers in
order to increase its APC revenue, is at one end of the egregiousness
spectrum, while a journal that claims to have a high impact factor
when in fact it has none at all, or claims to provide rigorous peer
review when it in fact provides no peer review at all, or deliberately
populates its editorial masthead with the names of people who haven’t
agreed to be on it, or deliberately hides its APC charges until after
the author has submitted her paper, etc., is at the other end of the
egregiousness spectrum — and is also engaged in a very different kind
of behavior than one that honestly tries to provide competent services
but fails to some degree.

I guess what I’m saying is that I do think there are (at least) two
different “buckets” of bad publishing behavior, and that the
difference between them matters very much. I think if we lump the
honest but low-quality journals in with those that are actively trying
to deceive, we do a serious disservice to the journals that are
genuinely trying to do the right thing.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
[log in to unmask]



On 6/19/17, 8:30 PM, "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of
LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: "Smith, Kevin L" <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:55:35 +0000
>
>I agree about the various motives authors have for deciding where to
>publish.  I was quite surprised the couple of times when I turned down
>an application to Duke’s OA fund because the journal did not meet the
>standards for the fund and was considered “predatory,” only to have
>the author thank me but say that they still thought the journal was
>the right place for their article, even without funding assistance.
>
>In general I think we in the library and publishing world are too
>ready to think in terms of categories like predatory v. respectable.
>My major complaint about Beall’s list is that it fostered this kind of
>thinking.  There is actually a continuum of predatory practices in
>academic publishing.  Some are caused by outright dishonesty, while
>others may be the result of incompetence or inexperience.  And such
>predatory practices are found in all business models; librarians long
>been aware of subscription journals where peer-review is dubious or
>publication schedules are unreliable.  These publishers also take
>money -- from institutions rather than directly from authors -- and do
>not meet the expected standards.  Are these not also predatory
>practices?
>
>Instead of replicating Beall’s list, which lacked both the scope and
>the nuance needed to define the problem, perhaps we should be building
>a database that tracks specific practices and problems.  In that way
>we could assist librarians and individual authors about what, exactly,
>they should look out for regarding particular titles or publishers.
>
>I believe a lot more value could be realized if we talked about
>practices in publishing rather than confined ourselves to rigid and
>unhelpful “buckets.”
>
>Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
>Dean of Libraries
>University of Kansas