From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 08:52:17 +0400
Hi All
I'm an editor of one the the journals that is published by ISPUB,
listed as a predator publisher. I know it's a pain when someone
climbs in with facts to destroy a good conspiracy theory, but here
goes.
1. ISPUB uses advertising. Yes, it does, and lots of it. We have
heard from the "legitimate" publishers all their estimates of the
thousands of dollars that are required for preparing and reviewing an
article (i.e. all the "value added" stuff). And that their massive
charges to libraries are not exorbitant, but are reasonable in the
light of these costs. Yet ISPUB charges only $225 per article, and
frequently reduces or waives that fee. How is that possible? Through
advertising. Plain and simple. Remove the advertising, and the
publication charges increase. Which is the better option? (I suppose
it depends on how much spare cash you have lying around).
2. Charging for publication. Long before OA was popular, journals
charged for publishing. Naturally, they often didn't call it a
publication fee. They called it a "page" fee, or a "colour printing"
fee. Call it what you like, there's a contribution that the author
(or the author's institution) needs to make to get some articles
published. As a researcher, I've had to pay a fee for two articles.
One to a traditional publisher, one to an OA publisher (BMC).
3. Publishers don't make the decision on whether or not to publish an
article. On this one, I can only speak for my journal, but I have no
reason to believe that that ISPUB does anything differently with its
other journals. Authors submit their papers electronically, and they
are sent directly to me. The publisher doesn't touch them at this
stage. My reviewers and I make the decision on whether or not it gets
published. Once that decision is made, the article is handed over to
the publisher who deals with charges, date of publication, etc. This
is not rocket science, and is standard in the publishing world.
Actually, one of the sources of frustration with the authors is when
they want to find out information about the date of issue, and other
publication activities, and I refer them directly to the publisher,
with the explanation that the publisher doesn't interfere with the
editorial process, and I don't interfere with the publication process.
4. Neither my reviewers nor I are paid a cent for anything in this
process. Yes, that appears difficult for some on this list to grasp,
but it is true.
5. My experience with a lot of the indexing sites is that they are
very loath to take a risk and actually perform their own evaluation of
a journal, and index that journal purely on their own evaluation.
Most of them will index a journal only if it is already indexed
somewhere else. And the irony of that appears completely lost on
them.
6. Others, like PubMed/Medline will index a journal only after it has
a specified number of articles. They simply ignore the fact that
medical authors are loath to publish in a journal unless the journal
is already indexed through Medline, and so the cycle continues.
7. Quality of articles. Quality of articles ranges, (have you not
seen some appalling articles in reputable journals, and wondered how
they ever got there?), and I've not seen many of these sites talking
about how they rate those journals. Of course, one might rate them by
the number of citations, but that is so self-referential, it hardly
needs commentary. Again, though, whether a paper is published or not
depends on the editors, not the publisher, so attacking the publisher
simply makes no sense at all.
Even in my own journal, some of the articles I've published
hesitatingly. The authors are taking a risk, and pushing the limits.
Sometimes, just stirring things up a little. The choice is: would I
rather play it safe, or am I prepared to go out on a limb for an
author? I'm never going to get it right 100% of the time. Show me an
editor who can claim to have done that, and I will show you an idiot
or a liar.
8. According to some commentators, there appears to be mythical number
of articles that a journal should publish each year. Too many, and
it's obvious that the editorial process is useless. Too few, and it's
obvious that the journal is dead or dying. If anyone knows that
mythical number, please let me know.
9. You are all intelligent professionals. You don't need to look at
someone else's list to see whether or not researchers should use a
journal or not. You can look at it yourself. For my part, if you'd
like to see the document that my reviewers have to complete for their
review, I'll happily send you a copy.
If you've read this far, thank you.
Regards
Ken
------
Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman
E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education
____/\\/********\\/\\____
|
