a. I agree with Jan Velterop that the Fools-Gold Junk-Journal start-ups are not a major problem and will be weeded out with time.
b. I even agree that authors (and referees) that fall for journal scam get what they deserve, and perhaps learn a useful lesson from it. c. I also agree that the minority of research that is of maximal importance makes it to the top no matter what. But Jan is completely mistaken about the Green-to-Gold transition scenario. It is not, as he implies, (1) globally mandated Green, followed by (2) subscription collapse, followed by (3) an "avalanche" of Gold start-ups (and hence the Beall situation): The Green-to Gold transition scenario<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/>is a conversion of the *established subscription journals* to Gold (3) under subscription cancelation pressure (2) from globally mandated Green (1). That's the only way to get journals to cut costs by downsizing to just the post-Green essentials (no-fault peer review<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html>). And that's why *globally mandated Green must come first*. Jan's preferred scenario of a publisher-controlled direct transition to pre-emptive Gold (whether via hybrids or start-ups), without the downsizing pressure from Green, will not only take extremely long<http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/bjorkspring.png>, but will retain the bloated inessentials and their costs. And during this lengthy transition, while subscriptions still need to be sustained by institutions (because everything is not available as Green OA), double-payment (for subscriptions to input and publishing fees for output), aside from slowing the transition, will even add to the bloat. *Stevan Harnad* On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Jan Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote: > "...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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
