From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:59:52 -0400 I was under the impression that Elsevier did not publish the journal that accepted the "sting" article, but that Elsevier has a services arrangement with the journal's publisher. Am I mistaken about this? It's a material item. In a service relationship, Elsevier ( or any of the publishers that do this kind of thing, including Wiley, OUP, Cambridge, Springer, Sage, etc., etc.), the service provider has not involvement with editorial selection. Consider the alternative: would anyone want a service provider to be telling the professional societies whose journals they host and distribute what to publish? Assigning responsibility in a situation like this is complicated. But once again we should thank Bohannon for making everybody pay attention. Joe Esposito On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 5:17 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 01:06:05 +0000 > > This isn't quite what I intended to say. I would assert that on the > basis of Bohannon's sting, we are not justified in calling these > journals predatory in the first place. We simply don't have enough > evidence for that, or the right kind of evidence. If acceptance of > Bohannon's bogus paper makes a publisher predatory, then Elsevier and > Sage belong on Jeffrey's list. > > Kevin > > Kevin L. Smith, J.D. > Director of Scholarly Communication > Duke University Libraries > Durham, NC 27708 > > > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:24 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > From: "Beall, Jeffrey" <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:08:59 -0600 > > > > Kevin's right; excellent research can indeed appear in predatory > > journals; I have observed this. Predatory publishers do their best to > > appear legitimate, and they do everything they can to fool honest > > researchers into submitting papers to their journals. Sometimes they > > are successful, and a good researcher submits a novel and interesting > > paper to them, which they accept and publish. > > > > Predatory publishers don't discriminate; they want bad papers and good > > ones, as long as they can collect the APC. > > > > Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor > > Scholarly Initiatives Librarian > > Auraria Library > > University of Colorado Denver > > Denver, Colo. 80204 USA > > [log in to unmask] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:40:49 +0000 > > > > Surely it is a massive and unjustified leap to go from saying that a > > journal accepted Bohannon's bogus paper to calling that entire journal > > bogus or suggesting that none of the contents of any of these journals > > could have value. > > > > I have been looking at and considering the Journal of Natural > > Pharmaceuticals. A quick look at PubMed and PubMed Central suggest > > that neither index includes that journal, which was the one Bohannon > > focused on in the beginning of his expose. But as I point out in this > > blog post -- http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2013/10/10/the-big-picture-about-peer-review/ > > -- two major indexes for general academic research, one from Gale and > > one from EBSCO, do include it. And we simply have no basis for > > concluding that every article published in that journal is compromised > > by the apparent fact that Bohannon's article was accepted. The web > > site Retraction Watch lists a recent retraction of an article that was > > published in Stem Cells and Development, a journal published by Mary > > Ann Liebert which I am confident is indexed in PubMed and PubMed > > Central. But surely not every article published in that journal is > > tainted by the one retraction? > > > > I am fascinated by some of the cultural assumptions at work in this > > discussion. When the open access community gathered in Stellenbosch > > last year for the Berlin 10 Conference, one of the themes we heard > > repeatedly was that research done in Africa by Africans about African > > issues was unavailable to the people of Africa because it was > > published in Western/Northern journals that were unaffordable for > > African universities. The new business models of open access offer > > opportunities to resolve that problem, but they clearly need to > > develop and work out their problems, just as subscription-based > > journal publishing did several centuries ago. But instead we see > > carefully orchestrated and "cooked" sting operations like Bohannon's > > (who pretended that his article was written by an African) designed to > > undermine those journals before they can get well-established. It is > > ironic that Bohannon controlled for the possibility that his "native > > English" might give the game away (what an assumption!) but not for > > the possibility that subscription-based journals in the developed > > world might also have accepted his paper. > > > > There is an interesting discussion to be had about what exactly > > peer-review can really tell us and how we might resolve the bias in > > current academic publishing for well-capitalized operations in the > > developed world, with their apparent desire to slay all challengers to > > their dominance. There is lots to say. But one thing we cannot say > > is that Bohannon's journalistic sting operation has shown that all of > > the research published in all the journals he targets is bogus. > > > > Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D. > > Director, Copyright and Scholarly Communication Duke University > > Libraries Durham, NC 27708 [log in to unmask]