From: "Jan Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 08:16:20 +0000

Belatedly, my two cents for this discussion:

a. Librarians now choose between packages, not journals. And packages
may be stuffed with low-quality journals, in order to show an increase
in titles and articles to justify price increases.

b. Predatory: There cannot be any doubt that the financial burden upon
science does not currently lie in APCs to dubious journals, but in the
profit margins of major publishers like Elsevier (nearly 1 billion GBP
2016).

Best,
Jan Erik Frantsvåg
Open Access Adviser
UiT The Arctic University of Norway

-----Opprinnelig melding-----
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 23:52:26 -0500

Yes, but there is this major difference: APCs in OA publishing provide
the financial incentive for unscrupulous people to set up journals for
the sole purpose of defrauding authors and reaping profits out of the
pockets of scholars (or whoever paid the APCs). There is no comparable
business incentive to set up journals under a subscription model
because librarians, who presumably exercise good judgment in deciding
what journals to subscribe to,  are in control of the flow of funds to
publishers.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Steve Oberg <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:23:48 +0000
>
> Rick and others,
>
> A key aspect of this whole discussion for me is that the word
> "predatory" has been tightly linked to the words "open access" when it
> comes to journals. I think this is a problem. Part of my takeaway from
> what Kevin wrote is that other, non open access journals have the same
> or very similar characteristics. And I think that's an important
> point. It reminds me of hearing some people dismiss open access as
> equal to poor quality or not peer-reviewed or any number of other
> canards that are used to directly or subtly undermine the open access
> movement. It's weird to me that those people won't acknowledge or
> cannot see that some of the things for which they criticize open
> access as a form of publication are also things that can and do exist
> in for profit publications.
>
> Steve
>
> Steve Oberg
> Assistant Professor of Library Science Group Leader for Resource
> Description and Digital Initiatives Wheaton College (IL)
> +1 (630) 752-5852
>
> NASIG President
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 8:43 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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]