From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 08:33:32 +0400

Hi All

Kevin's idea sounds great.  It will have the added advtange of having
those publishers who are trying honestly, but just messing up, to see
what the major problems are, fix them, and then report back.

There would have to be some issues to be considered, and, perhaps
monitored.  Off the top of my head, here are two:

1.  Identity: Will authors be required to identify themselves?

- If anonymous, this will allow unscrupulous publishers and editors to
seed the forum with positive comments; it will also allow competitors
(or anybody with an axe to grind) to seed the forum with negative
comments.

- If identifiable, authors might be reluctant to post negative
comments.  E.g. If I have had a really bad experience with a journal
or publisher, then, if I publish a negative comment, how will my next
article be received by that journal or by other publishers/editors who
are monitoring that forum?

A possible solution is a two-step process in which people would have
to register with the website, and identify themselves in detail to the
website, but then be allowed to choose a pseudonym.  Postings would be
made with the pseudonym only, and people could identify themselves
further if they wanted to.  This would prevent most seeding, and also
allow protective anonymity.

This might have to be monitored, though.  I could still write a
general and vague account of a bad/good experience, but it would
become suspicious if I developed a pattern of this.  Somebody would
have to check this.  If other authors could comment on my comment,
though, it would become clear that mine, even if true, was typical or
an isolated instance.

2. Publishers'/editors' responses

Would Publishers/editors be able to respond, and how far could they go
in explaining or defending themselves?  For instance, if an author
complained about a worthless review to his paper, then, assuming the
author identified her/himself, would I, as editor, be permitted to
publish the reviewers' comments so that others could judge?  And if I
felt that the reviewers' comments needed the context of the original
manuscript submitted, would I be permitted to publish that original
manuscript in the forum also?  Or would I just have to work without
it, and hope that other authors on the forum give positive comments?

I raise these as problems to be solved, not as insurmountable
obstacles to Kevin's idea.

Disclaimer: EiC of  a journal on Beall's list.

Regards

Ken

Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University