Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 03:31:11 +0000

There was a good preconference session on predatory publishing at the SSP annual meeting that made this point well. Authors have lots of motivations; some know what they are doing when they work with 'predatory' publishers but their needs are served by them. But surely the other side of the story of researchers who do not understand the nature of the 'predatory' publishers to whom they submit manuscripts is also true.

Mary Summerfield
Manager, SPIE Publications Business Development


________________________________________

From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:06:50 -0400

Thank you for this comment, Colette. It seems to me to pretty much hit
the bullseye.

Joe Esposito


On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:48 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Collette Mak <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:41:00 -0400
>
> thanks(!) for posting, I don't know how I missed that!
>
> There's no question that he comes across as a bitter, venom-spitting curmudgeon in that opinion piece but it reminded me that we do owe him a debt of gratitude for shining a spotlight on the very real issue of predatory publishers and on the potential threat to the rigor of scholarly publishing.  I disagree with him (and with the excellent LSE blog on SciHub) that it's a failure of publishing.  I think it's more a failure of promotion/tenure to have kept pace with a rapidly changing scholarly communications environment. If you're going to be graded on publications then people going to want to publish, Adam Smith's invisible hand is going to meet that market demand.
>
> Guess it's my day to be the curmudgeon and, BTW, get off my lawn
>
> Collette
>
> Collette Mak
> Outreach and Scholarly Communications Librarian
> Hesburgh Libraries
>
> University of Notre Dame
> 159 Hesburgh Library
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> o: 574-631-7392
> e: [log in to unmask]
> orcid: 0000-0003-4563-8545