"...they [start-up subscription journals, or as Stevan calls them "bottom-rung journals"] were not subscribed to by institutions if there was no empty subject niche they were filling, nor before they had established their track-records for quality."
Where has Stevan been the last 4 decades? The niche for new subscription journals always was (and for new journals in any model probably still is) defined by a surfeit of articles looking for a journal to submit to, not by an empty subject niche. There are sooo many subscription journals occupying the same niche — sometimes partially, but often enough completely — and yet they are all subscribed to, widely or narrowly, but economically sufficiently, on the strength of the adage that "you can't afford to miss anything in your discipline". And 'quality' has never been more than a vague and nebulous concept with little predictive value when applied to the vast majority of journals. (Not that I think that matters. Articles of true significance, in whichever journals, mostly drift to the surface anyway. A good, and citable, article in a low Impact Factor journal is not so much dragged down by that low IF, but pushes the IF up, if IFs are what tickle your 'quality' fancy.) In the 'green' scenario, a move to 'gold' is supposed to happen only after everything is 'green' OA and subscriptions are not possible anymore. The then sudden need for OA journals is, in that scenario, only to be satisfied by a veritable avalanche of start-up 'gold' journals, the credibility of which won't be assessable. And they will all feature on Beall's list. How much better to gradually build up a 'gold' OA infrastructure, while suspect new OA journals can be caught, or while Darwinian selection to weed them out can take place. That can be — fortunately, is being — done alongside 'green'. Remember, while 'green' doesn't include 'gold', 'gold' *does* include 'green'. I regard a Darwinian 'weeding' of non-credible journals (including those who Beall classifies as 'predatory') a wholly realistic scenario. Authors submitting to — and paying for — journals without duly checking the journals' credentials are probably too gullible to expect to produce much worthwhile publishable science anyway. It's a harsh world, the scientific one. Jan Velterop On 19 Dec 2012, at 05:51, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On 2012-12-18, at 8:26 PM, Roddy Macleod <macleod.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Editors with publishing and library experience, available to do the > background work, and backed up with scholarly reviewers - sounds OK to me. > > "Please support us in our efforts. We need submissions and we need volunteers > to review them in their areas of expertise. Both can be done by registering > with Social Sciences Directory as a User." > http://www.socialsciencesdirectory.com/index.php/socscidir/article/view/32/69 > > (1) Is this what was meant by peer review at Heriot-Watt University? > > (2) Is this how Heriot-Watt University would have assessed whether there is a > niche or need for a new peer-reviewed journal? > > (3) Is this how Heriot-Watt University would have assessed a new journal's > quality in deciding whether to subscribe to it? > > (4) Would Heriot-Watt University consider it OK for journals to be selected > (by authors, subscribers, or "members") on the basis of their economic model > rather than their quality? > > No question that there are and always were bottom-rung journals among > subscription journals too: > > Difference was that they did not have the extra allure of OA and Gold Fever; > they were not subscribed to by institutions if there was no empty subject > niche they were filling, nor before they had established their track-records > for quality. And journals could not cover their start-up costs by tempting > authors to publish with them by paying for it, again seasoned with the extra > allure of OA and Gold Fever, and perhaps of quick and easy acceptance for > publication. > > (Needy start-up subscription journals lowering quality standards to fill the > need for submissions would simply reduce their chances of getting > subscriptions -- but this does not necessarily lower the chances of tempting > needy authors to pay-to-publish in OA start-up journals -- and especially > before the journal's quality record is established, when all a fool's gold > start-up needs for legitimacy is to wrap itself in the mantle of OA and > righteous indignation against the "tyranny of the impact factor" unfairly > favouring established journals…) > > As I have said many times, institutions are free to part themselves from > their spare money in any way they like. But if they claim they're doing it > for the sake of OA, they had better mandate Green OA (effectively) first -- > otherwise (as long as they are double-paying, over and above their > uncancelable subscriptions) they are in the iron pyrite market. (And > encouraging this, blindly, is one of the perverse effects of Finch Folly.) > > Stevan Harnad > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 PM, LIBLICENSE <liblice...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Roddy Macleod <macleod.ro...@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:56:25 +0000 > > This discussion seems well over the top. > > Editors with publishing and library experience, available to do the > background work, and backed up with scholarly reviewers - sounds OK to > me. The SSD website looks well organised (and a lot better and easier > to use than some I've seen). And, for goodness sakes - it's a > startup! > > Something more relevant to warn against? How about all the 'predatory > journals' http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ and the 'Criminal > Impersonation' of faked postings > > http://lisnews.org/listed_predatory_publishers_fight_back_with_criminal_impersonation > > Or the rubbish stuff from some established journal publishers: > > http://roddymacleod.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/rubbish-stuff-from-publishers-6/ > http://roddymacleod.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/journal-publishers-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-i-name-names/ > > Roddy MacLeod > > On 18 December 2012 00:08, LIBLICENSE <liblice...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatc...@alumni.princeton.edu> > > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:49:22 -0600 > > > > Is there a list of these 100 registered reviewers publicly posted > > anywhere? And why are reviewers "registered" anyway? Normally, a > > journal goes to find the best reviewer anywhere, not just limit the > > selection to a predetermined list. For a journal that claims to cover > > all of the social sciences, 100 would seem to be a severely inadequate > > number to draw upon. > > > > Sandy Thatcher > > > > > > > From: Dan Scott <dan.sc...@socialsciencesdirectory.com> > > > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:11:53 +0000 > > > > > > Stevan: A correction: as the press release and our editorial policy > > > make clear, we carry out a full peer review. We also have over 100 > > > registered referees. > > > > > > Dan Scott > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
