Hi all if you look at Walt Crawfords fantastic work on OA-journals ( http://citesandinsights.info/) I think it fair to say that we are talking about 5% of papers published in fully OA-journals charging APCs - I have not done the exact calculations
cheers Lars Bjørnshauge On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> wrote: > Of course being trapped by a predatory publisher is a terrible thing for > an individual. Just as sending your bank details to a Nigerian oil scammer > and ending up being ripped off is a terrible thing. And some of these > ‘publishers’ are behaving reprehensibly. > > But I think we have the right to know the size of the problem. Is this > happening to tens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of authors? You > are asking us as a community to invest time and effort into providing > solutions - let’s know how much of a problem it is first. > > David > > > On 9 Sep 2015, at 13:29, Richard Poynder <ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> > wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > Even if anyone knows the answers to your questions they will not capture > the nature and size of the problem of predatory publishing, not least > because the way in which these companies extract money from researchers is > mutating all the time. > > > > For instance, some have started to impose “withdrawal fees”. This means > that when a researcher suddenly realises that they have submitted their > paper to a publisher they would have been advised not to do business with, > or when their institution says that it is not prepared to pay the APC > because the publisher is on Beall’s list, then the researcher will want to > withdraw it. But when they try to do so they may suddenly discover that > their paper is now a hostage. They will be told they must either pay the > APC, or pay a withdrawal fee. Since the latter will be lower than the > former, this is likely the option they will go for. > > > > Clearly, the latter transaction will be invisible, yet the researcher will > be out of pocket and the publisher will have increased its revenue, and > will as a result be able to grow and expand as a result, and devise new > ways of extracting money as it grows. > > > > If we are only concerned about how many papers are being published in > journals listed by Beall relative to all papers being published then your > questions may be good and relevant ones. But if we are concerned about the > impact that this activity is having on individuals then I think your > questions do not go far enough. > > > > For more on this see: http://goo.gl/gybP9G > > > > If the above link does not take you directly to the comments I am > referring to, they are the last 5 comments below the interview. > > > > Richard Poynder > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org > <goal-boun...@eprints.org>] *On Behalf Of *David Prosser > *Sent:* 09 September 2015 11:25 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal > > > > To get an idea of the size of the problem of ‘predatory' publishers, does > anybody know: > > > > a) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers > compared to the total number of papers published worldwide; or even > > > > b) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers > compared to the total number of papers published as Gold OA worldwide. > > > > > > If I had to guess, I would say that both proportions are tiny. > > > > David > > > > > > > > On 9 Sep 2015, at 09:42, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> > wrote: > > > > What many now refer to as predatory publishing first came to my attention > 7 years ago, when I interviewed a publisher who — I had been told — was > bombarding researchers with invitations to submit papers to, and sit on the > editorial boards of, the hundreds of new OA journals it was launching. > > > > Since then I have undertaken a number of other such interviews, and with > each interview the allegations have tended to become more worrying — e.g. > that the publisher is levying article-processing charges but not actually > sending papers out for review, that it is publishing junk science, that it > is claiming to be a member of a publishing organisation when in reality it > is not a member, that it is deliberately choosing journal titles that are > the same, or very similar, to those of prestigious journals (or even > directly cloning titles) in order to fool researchers into submitting > papers to it etc. etc. > > > > The number of predatory publishers continues to grow year by year, and yet > far too little is still being done to address the issue. > > > > Discussion of the problem invariably focuses on the publishers. But in > order to practise their trade predatory publishers depend on the > co-operation of researchers, not least because they have to persuade a > sufficient number to sit on their editorial boards in order to have any > credibility. Without an editorial board a journal will struggle to attract > many submissions. > > > > Is it time to approach the problem from a different direction? > > > > More here: > http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/predatory-publishing-modest-proposal.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Lars Bjørnshauge Managing Director DOAJ – www.doaj.org mobile phone: +45 53 51 06 03 Skype-Id: lbj-lub0603 - Twitter: elbjoern0603 e.mail: e <l...@arl.org>lbjoern0...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
