From: Robert Kiley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:33:08 +0000
Jean-Claude
I understand it the main problem with "predatory journals" is the peer
review or rather, lack of peer review.
One way to solve this might be to move to an open peer review model in
which all reviews are open and signed (as used by Wellcome Open Research,
and many others). If a "predatory journal" advertises that they offer peer
review, but then cant demonstrate this (by publishing the reviews along
with the names - and ideally ORCID Id's of the reviewers) they will quickly
get found out (and hopefully this will discourage authors form publishing
in such titles).
Publishing peer review reports (with the reviewers name) not only helps to
address the problem being discussed here, but it is also a useful service
for readers. Anecdotally we are hearing that readers of Wellcome Open
Research papers typically read the review first -- noting who reviewed it -
as a way of determining whether to read the article in full. And, come to
think of it, this model is what we all tend to use when deciding what films
to go and watch or what music to stream.
Robert
Robert Kiley
Head of Open Research
Wellcome Trust
215 Euston Road, London. NW1 2BE
Tel: 020 7611 8338; Mobile: 07918 160509
ORCID: 0000-0003-4733-2558
Twitter @robertkiley
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:22:49 -0400
Jeffrey Beall's article in Biochemia Medica is indeed well worth reading,
both for positive and negative reasons.
To start with, publishing this article in an open-access journal that does
not require article processing charges (APC) is exemplary. This is the pure
form of Gold publishing, unlike APC-based publishing. The possibility of
offering pure Gold publishing in this particular case rests on the simple
fact that the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory
Medicine supports its journal financially, and it receives grants from the
Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia.
The most important concern expressed by Jeffrey Beall in this article is
indeed the issue of the quality of science that Jim O'Donnell has
underscored in his reaction. Beall makes the correct argument that the the
use of APCs places a journal in a delicate situation because any financial
pressure on this journal will lead to the temptation of lowering the
rejection rate of submissions to increase revenues. This does not lead
outright to a conflict of interest, but the possibility is certainly open.
It also opens the door to predatory journals, a point that I have made
myself on a number of occasions most recently in my piece commemorating the
15th anniversary of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, "Open Access:
Toward the Internet of the Mind"
(http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/open-access-toward-the-
internet-of-the-mind).
Seen in this perspective, the rise of predatory journals is
indeed preoccupying: rejection rates vary continuously from 0 to high
percentages. At what rejection level is knowledge considered to be valid,
albeit of mediocre quality? Presently, the scientific archive is comprised
of articles that lie uneasily at the limits of validity.
As Beall points out, this creates a clear and important demarcation dilemma
which should not be neglected by anyone, particularly by defenders of open
access. We are now saddled with pseudo- and border-line science with
incalculable consequences for the future of knowledge. A great clean-up
effort is in order and libraries could certainly network and organize to
help in this task. Despite what Beall states in his section on white and
black lists, the best way for libraries to participate in a great cleanup
job of the scientific record would be to assist DOAJ in establishing a
worldwide white list of open access journals and in maintaining it.
Librarians have another problem to confront: is it really their role to
support the APC-based form of open access? My answer is that it is not.
Simply by paying APCs, libraries intrinsically support a business model
which, among other disadvantages, opens the possibility of counterfeit
journals to multiply. If libraries withdrew APC-subsidies, they would also
have more resources to craft open access in better ways, including the
support of pure, APC-free, Gold publishing, presumably in conjunction with
university presses.
Beall is entirely correct in stigmatizing the way academic achievements
are evaluated and measured. However, he should also consider how strongly
impact factors are defended by publishers. Meanwhile, researchers should be
examine the fallacies of the IF.
On the negative side, the latest piece by Jeffrey Beall contains a number
of errors and weird forms of judgements that simply weaken his case.
1. The reasons outlined by Beall to explain the dramatic rise in
subscription prices of serials are incomplete at best. The currency
explanation is simply inaccurate, as a quick look at <
http://www.macrotrends.net/2549/pound-dollar-exchange-rate-historical-chart>
will
show. Meanwhile, the costs of journals kept going steadily up and up, and
at a pace that easily exceeded the combined effects of inflation and of the
expanded publishing needs of research communities all over the world after
WWII. For other explanations, I have touched on this subject back in 2001
in <http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/in-
oldenburgs-long-shadow.pdf>, an essay I wrote for ARL. More recently,
beside my BOAI piece already referenced above, the issue is also analyzed
in the report "Untangling Academic Publishing" by Aileen Fyfe & alii,
recently launched in the UK <https://zenodo.org/record/546100#.WUGqex9ElhE>.
2. In quick successsion, I also note the following errors:
a. DSpace and EPrint, two of the more popular repository software, are
free software. As a result, licensing costs are zero. And how can
repositories be so costly on p. 274 and relatively inexpensive on p.
278?
b. Open access "zealots" would have to be very powerful to impose mandates
on their fellow researchers. In most of the cases I know, such mandates
have been negotiated inch by inch, and through a fully democratic process;
c. Could we have some documentation on the tens of thousands of researchers
who have allegedly earned Masters and PH.D. degrees thanks to predatory
journals? No need to floor the rhetorical pedal here.
There is finally the issue of Beall's difficulties with the "Open Access
Movement". Clearly, he reacts to this phrase the way a Fox News anchor
might refer to "The Left". In the end, his characterization of the
"Movement" turns out to be quite funny. It lends an appearance of cohesion
and unified perspective to a dispersed group of people who, often, do not
even know each other personally, and find plenty of reasons to disagree
vigorously with each other. Individuals ready to accept being broadly
categorized in the "Open Access Movement" would nonetheless be astonished
by the image constructed here. But if it is what it takes to be on the side
of those defending higher minimal wages, then it may be worth bearing with
Beall's uncontested talent for the simplistic.
The paragraph purporting to describe how social movements need an enemy is
worthy of an anthology devoted to pop-sociology. Clearly, Biochemia Medica
is not very good at peer reviewing social science arguments.
On the other hand, the tactics used by some "publishers" against Beall are
simply unacceptable. Beall's forms of expression may not always have been
entirely appropriate to the academic context, but these failings do not
justify harassing him through the hierarchy of his university.
In toto, and despite its several flaws, Beall’s paper does foreground the
grave problem of an uncertain demarcation between good knowledge and the
rest. In an age of blatant unreason, this is a very important question. By
showing how the demarcation issue is deeply linked with the rejection rates
of submissions in journals, and how in turn the rejection rate affects
revenue generation in APC-based Gold publishing, Beall’s paper casts a long
shadow over APCs everywhere.
Le mardi 13 juin 2017 à 18:37 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:01:18 -0700
Jeffrey Beall of the University of Denver has published, in a serious
peer-reviewed journal, an article outlining the history of the 'predatory
list' and his views on the landscape of journal publishing.
http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2017/2/273?t=1&cn=
ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&iid=c80e62cb81974fa6879b869bb69248
37&uid=774480907&nid=244+289476616
This link should work as well:
https://tinyurl.com/ydgy4h39
It is one of five pieces on predatory journals in this special issue of the
journal Biochemia Medica, a distinctive venue. Here is a link that should
take you to the special issue:
http://www.biochemia-medica.com/node/830
Beall's unorthodoxy is palpable, his arguments vigorous. His largest
concern is with the damage done to the quality of science by the profusion
of unreliable sources. He doesn't quite say "fake science!"
but that is the direction in which he points. Well worth reading.
Jim O'Donnell
ASU
This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security
- www.websense.com
|
