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