Well, if he is actually in favour of OA and this is not a publicity stunt, I will have to check my English dictionary.
*Robert Kiley* @*robertkiley* <https://twitter.com/robertkiley> 17h<https://twitter.com/robertkiley/status/389674803742785536> Bohannon on Radio5 expresses concern that OA business model promotes fraud. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03cnqwf … <http://t.co/pDYqyi2knW>(clip starts at 43.17) #*openaccess* <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23openaccess&src=hash> On 13 October 2013 17:30, Graham Triggs <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 October 2013 20:28, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is a specific problem of *peer review standards of pay-to-publish >> Gold OA journals* at a time when there is still far too little OA and >> when most journals are still subscription journals, most authors are still >> confused about OA, many think that OA is synonymous with Gold OA journals, >> and, most important, there are not yet enough effective mandates from >> research funders and institutions that require authors to make all their >> papers OA by depositing them in their institutional OA repositories ("Green >> OA"), regardless of where they were published. >> > > Telling authors that pay-to-publish Gold OA journals are bad (when they > are not per se, just the known predatory ones), and then mandating that > they make their papers "open access" (well, public access, by depositing to > the repository), is hardly going to make them less confused. > > >> And each round of peer review (which peers do for free, by the way, so >> the only real cost is the qualified editor who evaluates the submissions, >> picks the referees, and adjudicates the referee reports -- plus the referee >> tracking and communication software) would be paid for on a "no-fault" >> basis, *per round of peer review*, whether the outcome was acceptance, >> rejection, or revision and resubmission for another (paid) round of peer >> review. >> >> Unlike with today's Fool's Gold junk journals that were caught by >> Bohannon's sting, not only will no-fault post-Green, Fair-Gold peer-review >> remove any incentive to accept lower quality papers (and thereby reduce the >> reputation of the journal) -- because the journal is paid for the peer >> review service in any case -- but it will help make Fair-Gold OA costs even >> lower, per round of peer review, because it will not wrap the costs of the >> rejected or multiply revised and re-refereed papers into the cost of each >> accepted paper, as they do now. >> > > Nope. It will replace the incentive to publish lower quality papers with > minimal peer review, with an incentive to run it through a couple of peer > review rounds. And as you can't actually force journals to adopt this > model, then there will always remain predatory journals that provide a > means for lower quality papers to be published. > > G > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Jacinto Dávila http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
