From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:58:06 +0000

Hi, Steve —

I agree completely that the close association of the term “predatory”
with “open access” has long been problematic. As I’ve said over and
over, there’s no real connection between open access and predation.
What gives rise to predation is not OA, but rather the APC model
itself, which creates an inevitable conflict of interest for the
publisher: the journal’s interest in generating revenue is in conflict
with its interest in publishing only good scholarship.

This is one reason I think the term “predatory” itself has outlived
its usefulness and should probably be abandoned. The real issue, I
think, is deceptiveness, and the standards of honesty that we apply to
journal publishers should be applied consistently and transparently
across the whole spectrum of publishers, no matter what their business
model may be.

---
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 6/21/17, 7:15 PM, "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of
LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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equal to poor quality or not peer-reviewed or any number of other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]