From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 03:51:36 +0000 > One far-fetched solution is a return to journal subscriptions. As any working librarian could have told the Economist's correspondent, reports of the death of the subscription journal have been greatly exaggerated. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication J. Willard Marriott Library Univ. of Utah ------------------------------ From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:38:34 -0700 The Economist's occasional correspondent on scholarly communication has reported again: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/ some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so Two points of interest were an update on the post-Beall listing issue (Cabell's has their list, but Beall's list is being kept up by someone who refuses to be identified?) and the report that some journals with sketchy practices are learning to simulate virtue by occasionally retracting articles (Economist calls this 'a superb piece of subterfuge'). The article credits a shift to APC-based OA as a contributor to the problem (by encouraging new entrants on the publisher side) and the article then concludes: "One far-fetched solution is a return to journal subscriptions. These have for so long been excoriated as rent-seeking profit-inflators restricting the flow of information that a change of course would now be unthinkable. But those who pushed for their elimination might be wise to pause for thought. As the old proverb has it, be careful what you wish for. You might get it." Jim O'Donnell ASU