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 ____/\\/********\\/\\____