From: Steve Oberg <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 16:29:07 +0000 I see Sandy’s point about APCs and the business model, although I think there are other characteristics besides this that have been conflated into the adjective, “predatory,” and that’s what I was trying to get at. And lest my previous post be taken as naive, well, put it down to an attempt at civil discourse. Steve Steve Oberg Assistant Professor of Library Science Group Leader for Resource Description and Digital Initiatives Wheaton College (IL) +1 (630) 752-5852 NASIG President On Jun 23, 2017, at 12:59 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Eric Elmore <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:09:31 +0000 Well, that's because the point is to destroy the open access movement, NOT point out flaws in the publishing industry as a whole. An uncorrupted and successful open access system would eliminate the very need for those large for-profit publishers. If academia (by this I mean the old school tenure & promotion luddites) would truly invest in an open access system for disseminating our literature, the only thing Elsevier and the rest would be able to publish would be those fluff pieces the pharmaceutical industry pays them to publish. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Eric Elmore | Electronic Resources Coordinator | The University of Texas at San Antonio | One UTSA Circle | San Antonio, TX. 78249-0671 | (O)210-458-4916/(F)210-458-4577 | [log in to unmask] | ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Steve Oberg <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:23:48 +0000 Rick and others, A key aspect of this whole discussion for me is that the word "predatory" has been tightly linked to the words "open access" when it comes to journals. I think this is a problem. Part of my takeaway from what Kevin wrote is that other, non open access journals have the same or very similar characteristics. And I think that's an important point. It reminds me of hearing some people dismiss open access as equal to poor quality or not peer-reviewed or any number of other canards that are used to directly or subtly undermine the open access movement. It's weird to me that those people won't acknowledge or cannot see that some of the things for which they criticize open access as a form of publication are also things that can and do exist in for profit publications. Steve Steve Oberg Assistant Professor of Library Science Group Leader for Resource Description and Digital Initiatives Wheaton College (IL) +1 (630) 752-5852 NASIG President On Jun 20, 2017, at 8:43 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 04:52:27 +0000 Kevin, I think you’re actually describing two different spectra of problematic publishing practices, not a single one. One is the spectrum of competence: some journals do a better job than others of rigorously publishing quality scholarship, but those that are honestly trying and failing to do so are not engaged in the same kind of behavior as what genuinely predatory journals do. Genuinely predatory publishing isn’t a matter of incompetence; it’s a matter of deliberate deception, and I think there’s a pretty dark line separating honest incompetence from active and willful deception. That being said, when it comes to predatory practices I do think there’s a spectrum of egregiousness. For example, a journal that fudges its impact factor a little bit, or that accepts a few subpar papers in order to increase its APC revenue, is at one end of the egregiousness spectrum, while a journal that claims to have a high impact factor when in fact it has none at all, or claims to provide rigorous peer review when it in fact provides no peer review at all, or deliberately populates its editorial masthead with the names of people who haven’t agreed to be on it, or deliberately hides its APC charges until after the author has submitted her paper, etc., is at the other end of the egregiousness spectrum — and is also engaged in a very different kind of behavior than one that honestly tries to provide competent services but fails to some degree. I guess what I’m saying is that I do think there are (at least) two different “buckets” of bad publishing behavior, and that the difference between them matters very much. I think if we lump the honest but low-quality journals in with those that are actively trying to deceive, we do a serious disservice to the journals that are genuinely trying to do the right thing. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 [log in to unmask]