LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  June 2013

LIBLICENSE-L June 2013

Subject:

Re: From Nature: 66 journals banned for boosting impact factor with self-citations

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:10:01 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (80 lines)

From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:43:28 +0100

Antony and I disagree on this.  I think that by focussing such a
bright light on such a tiny problem (the minute number of papers being
published by publishers on Beall's list) it is beginning to make an
association between 'Open Access' and 'Predatory' in the minds of
those who are paying scant attention.  And it deflects attention from
other 'predatory' behaviour by other publishers.

David



On 25 Jun 2013, at 01:45, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:45:10 +0100

I think there may have been some misunderstandings here. My experience
of interviewing academics over the last two months has been and the
conclusions I draw are:

1.      The activities of the publishers that Beall has listed has
been really and unfairly damaging to Open Access as a whole.
Academics seem to believe that is a systemic fault following from
paying to publish. Note that I do not believe this: I am recording. I
have yet to meet an academic who has complained about recently being
pressed to publish in, referee for or go on the editorial board of a
subscription journal whether new or old. I think DOAJ is correct in
taking note of this. I think Beall is doing a service to Open Access.

2.      Likewise in discussion about peer review quite a number of
academics have described circumstances when they are encouraged and
even (much less common) forced to cite other (supposedly relevant)
articles previously published in a journal they have submitted an
article to. My understanding is that most of these journals are
established subscription based journals though I did not ask this
question directly. I have read through the comment in Nature and the
original statement from ISI and I do not see a definition of
self-citation but my understanding was that this form of gaming
involves citation by an author in a journal of other articles
published in a journal not (as Joe seems to think) citation of one’s
own previous articles. For many years there has been discussion at
least in publishing and academic circles about how far one can go in
encouraging self-citation in this sense (compelling has always been
frowned upon): there is no secret here. It now seems to be generally
felt that editors should be discouraged (prevented?) by publishers
from adopting the practice of offering to the submitting author a list
of articles they might site.

I happen to have different views from Kevin. I do not want to force
authors to have to publish open access through mandates. But this is a
different question.

I have however nothing against nor ever had any objection to the open
access model only doubts about its sustainability in economic terms. I
can give references if anyone was interested.  I am certainly against
the OA model as such being trashed.

Anthony


From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph Esposito
Sent: 24 June 2013 00:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: From Nature: 66 journals banned for boosting impact
factor with self-citations

I would be astonished to discover that self-citation is restricted to
OA publications, so Kevin and I find ourselves in the unfamiliar
situation of agreeing with one another.  But there is a different
question buried here:  is the problem self-citation or the inclusion
of self-citation in measuring impact?  I would think that
self-citation is a natural act, like admiring your own children, but
there is no reason to include these citations in measuring impact.

Joe Esposito

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1