From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 00:11:42 -0500

Isn't the cure to this problem simply having promotion and tenure
committees take seriously their duty to make professional judgments
about the quality of a scholar's work and actually read their work,
rather than outsourcing the assessment to such measures as the Impact
Factor?  P&T committee members should have the expertise necessary to
pass judgment on the merits of their colleagues' work, and if they
don't, they can at least identify external assessors who can make the
proper judgments. So, even if peer review is not working as it should
for the acceptance of articles, it can still play the decisive role at
the stage where real decisions are made about scholars' career
advancement. That, ultimately, is what will defeat predatory
publishing because those who choose that route will not get promoted
or receive tenure if their articles do not meet the necessary
standards for career advancement.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Michael Magoulias <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:25:32 +0000
>
> Jim,
>
> I question your point 2. Nothing has been less a matter of sheer
> chance than the growth of predatory publishing in academic journals.
> One might just as well say that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had
> nothing to do with the financial crisis or that the unforgivably lax
> gun laws in the U.S. have no connection with  the mass killings that
> seem to take place every other week in this country.
>
> The most obvious hurdle that your argument needs to get over is the
> fact that the explosion of predatory publishing only took place after
> the establishment of BMC and PLOS One. True, correlation doesn't prove
> causation, but then an alternative and more compelling causal
> explanation has to be provided. I'm skeptical that there is one, but
> am willing to be persuaded.
>
> What BMC et al. did -- whether intentionally or not is of little
> importance -- is to change the publishing model from one in which
> clear and concentrated editorial judgement was the determining factor,
> to a model in which the author's payment of a fee was one -- not
> necessarily the only -- requirement.
>
> Once that door is opened, you have a vanity publishing model, and no
> matter how strident the attempts to convince skeptics that real peer
> review is going on, there will always be the suspicion that in too
> many cases publication is simply a function of pay-to-play.
>
> This suspicion moves closer to certainty once editorial policies are
> promoted that explicitly urge "soundness" rather than "significance."
> It's one of the minor mysteries of the 21st century why this
> repudiation of significance has not met with more outrage amongst the
> learned, especially in institutions that consider themselves members
> of an elite. I suspect it's fascination with the Kardashians.
>
> What needs to be recognized is that instead of solving the problem of
> commercial dominance of scientific publishing, Open Access has if
> anything added to it while creating the new problem of predatory
> publishing. It wouldn't be the first time, after all, that a quick
> trip to Hell was facilitated by the subway of good intentions.
>
> Michael
>
> Michael Magoulias
> University of Chicago Press Journals
>
>
>
>>  On Oct 1, 2015, at 6:52 PM, 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