Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:33:08 +0000

Jean-Claude

I understand it the main problem with "predatory journals" is the peer review or rather, lack of peer review.

One way to solve this might be to move to an open peer review model in which all reviews are open and signed (as used by Wellcome Open Research, and many others).  If a "predatory journal" advertises that they offer peer review, but then cant demonstrate this (by publishing the reviews along with the names - and ideally ORCID Id's of the reviewers) they will quickly get found out (and hopefully this will discourage authors form publishing in such titles).

Publishing peer review reports (with the reviewers name) not only helps to address the problem being discussed here, but it is also a useful service for readers.  Anecdotally we are hearing that readers of Wellcome Open Research papers typically read the review first -- noting who reviewed it - as a way of determining whether to read the article in full.  And, come to think of it, this model is what we all tend to use when deciding what films to go and watch or what music to stream.

Robert

Robert Kiley 
Head of Open Research
Wellcome Trust
215 Euston Road, London. NW1 2BE 
Tel: 020 7611 8338; Mobile: 07918 160509
ORCID: 0000-0003-4733-2558
Twitter @robertkiley


-----Original Message-----
From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:22:49 -0400

Jeffrey Beall's article in Biochemia Medica is indeed well worth reading, both for positive and negative reasons.

To start with, publishing this article in an open-access journal that does not require article processing charges (APC) is exemplary. This is the pure form of Gold publishing, unlike APC-based publishing. The possibility of offering pure Gold publishing in this particular case rests on the simple fact that the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine supports its journal financially, and it receives grants from the Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia.

The most important concern expressed by Jeffrey Beall in this article is indeed the issue of the quality of science that Jim O'Donnell has underscored in his reaction. Beall makes the correct argument that the the use of APCs places a journal in a delicate situation because any financial pressure on this journal will lead to the temptation of lowering the rejection rate of submissions to increase revenues. This does not lead outright to a conflict of interest, but the possibility is certainly open. It also opens the door to predatory journals, a point that I have made myself on a number of occasions most recently in my piece commemorating the 15th anniversary of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, "Open Access: Toward the Internet of the Mind"
(http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/open-access-toward-the-internet-of-the-mind).

Seen in this perspective, the rise of predatory journals is indeed preoccupying: rejection rates vary continuously from 0 to high percentages. At what rejection level is knowledge considered to be valid, albeit of mediocre quality? Presently, the scientific archive is comprised of articles that lie uneasily at the limits of validity.

As Beall points out, this creates a clear and important demarcation dilemma which should not be neglected by anyone, particularly by defenders of open access. We are now saddled with pseudo- and border-line science with incalculable consequences for the future of knowledge. A great clean-up effort is in order and libraries could certainly network and organize to help in this task. Despite what Beall states in his section on white and black lists, the best way for libraries to participate in a great cleanup job of the scientific record would be to assist DOAJ in establishing a worldwide white list of open access journals and in maintaining it.

Librarians have another problem to confront: is it really their role to support the APC-based form of open access? My answer is that it is not. Simply by paying APCs, libraries intrinsically support a business model which, among other disadvantages, opens the possibility of counterfeit journals to multiply. If libraries withdrew APC-subsidies, they would also have more resources to craft open access in better ways, including the support of pure, APC-free, Gold publishing, presumably in conjunction with university presses.

Beall is entirely correct in  stigmatizing the way academic achievements are evaluated and measured. However, he should also consider how strongly impact factors are defended by publishers. Meanwhile, researchers should be examine the fallacies of the IF.

On the negative side, the latest piece by Jeffrey Beall contains a number of errors and weird forms of judgements that simply weaken his case.

1. The reasons outlined by Beall to explain the dramatic rise in subscription prices of serials are incomplete at best. The currency explanation is simply inaccurate, as a quick look at <http://www.macrotrends.net/2549/pound-dollar-exchange-rate-historical-chart> will show. Meanwhile, the costs of journals kept going steadily up and up, and at a pace that easily exceeded the combined effects of inflation and of the expanded publishing needs of research communities all over the world after WWII. For other explanations, I have touched on this subject back in 2001 in <http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/in-oldenburgs-long-shadow.pdf>, an essay I wrote for ARL. More recently, beside my BOAI piece already referenced above, the issue is also analyzed in the report "Untangling Academic Publishing" by Aileen Fyfe & alii, recently launched in the UK <https://zenodo.org/record/546100#.WUGqex9ElhE>.

2. In quick successsion, I also note the following errors:

a.  DSpace and EPrint, two of the more popular repository software, are free software. As a result, licensing costs are zero. And how can repositories be so costly on p. 274 and relatively inexpensive on p.
278?

b. Open access "zealots" would have to be very powerful to impose mandates on their fellow researchers. In most of the cases I know, such mandates have been negotiated inch by inch, and through a fully democratic process;

c. Could we have some documentation on the tens of thousands of researchers who have allegedly earned Masters and PH.D. degrees thanks to predatory journals? No need to floor the rhetorical pedal here.

There is finally the issue of Beall's difficulties with the "Open Access Movement". Clearly, he reacts to this phrase the way a Fox News anchor might refer to "The Left". In the end, his characterization of the "Movement" turns out to  be quite funny. It lends an appearance of cohesion and unified perspective to a dispersed group of people who, often, do not even know each other personally, and find plenty of reasons to disagree vigorously with each other. Individuals ready to accept being broadly categorized in the "Open Access Movement" would nonetheless be astonished by the image constructed here. But if it is what it takes to be on the side of those defending higher minimal wages, then it may be worth bearing with Beall's uncontested talent for the simplistic.

The paragraph purporting to describe how social movements need an enemy is worthy of an anthology devoted to pop-sociology. Clearly, Biochemia Medica is not very good at peer reviewing social science arguments.

On the other hand, the tactics used by some "publishers" against Beall are simply unacceptable. Beall's forms of expression may not always have been entirely appropriate to the academic context, but these failings do not justify harassing him through the hierarchy of his university.

In toto, and despite its several flaws, Beall’s paper does foreground the grave problem of an uncertain demarcation between good knowledge and the rest. In an age of blatant unreason, this is a very important question. By showing how the demarcation issue is deeply linked with the rejection rates of submissions in journals, and how in turn the rejection rate affects revenue generation in APC-based Gold publishing, Beall’s paper casts a long shadow over APCs everywhere.



Le mardi 13 juin 2017 à 18:37 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:01:18 -0700

Jeffrey Beall of the University of Denver has published, in a serious peer-reviewed journal, an article outlining the history of the 'predatory list' and his views on the landscape of journal publishing.

http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2017/2/273?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&iid=c80e62cb81974fa6879b869bb6924837&uid=774480907&nid=244+289476616

This link should work as well:

https://tinyurl.com/ydgy4h39

It is one of five pieces on predatory journals in this special issue of the journal Biochemia Medica, a distinctive venue.  Here is a link that should take you to the special issue:

http://www.biochemia-medica.com/node/830

Beall's unorthodoxy is palpable, his arguments vigorous.  His largest concern is with the damage done to the quality of science by the profusion of unreliable sources.  He doesn't quite say "fake science!"
but that is the direction in which he points.  Well worth reading.

Jim O'Donnell
ASU


This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - www.websense.com