From: Nawin <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 16:54:19 -0600

I echo Anthony's view - there is something intrinsically wrong with the Open
Access model that asks for fees to publish, and its scholarly pretensions
are misleading.  By accepting fees from authors for publishing papers, it
has led to publication of articles that are at best of marginal value,
journals with low or non-existent quality standards, and created publishing
economics where time-honored practices of peer-review, copy-editing, and
design/aesthetics are being compromised or eliminated.  Could it potentially
do more damage in the long run than good that its proponents aspired to
achieve?

Nawin

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:47:35 +0000

Jeffrey has also written articles on this in The Charleston Advisor which
have been reviewed carefully by the editorial group. My own take is that
something is intrinsically wrong with the Open Access model, which leads to
behaviour of the sort he describes by unscrupulous publishers. There were
and probably are publishers in print which do not have proper arrangements
for peer review. As I see it, the problem is that if one works from a low
cost base it is very easy to start a whole tranche of journals which may not
have a proper editorial structure (editorial board members advertised just
because they have been asked and not accepted) and are not committed to
building a sustainable journal list. The easiness is the problem.

I understand that OASPA (the organisation of Open Access Publishers) does
not take these people into membership and expels them when they are exposed.
Unfortunately these publishers are rather good at marketing their services
and at the first glance can look serious. Many academics especially in
countries which are emerging into the international scholarly communication
network can be naive and spend money on publishing papers which alas will
bring them no credit or "impact".

Anthony