On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Lars Bjørnshauge <l...@arl.org> wrote:
> 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 > The PDF is hard to navigate, but I don't see how even a ball-park of 5% is the figure for the ratio of predatory-paid-gold to paid-gold articles published (annually, of course). How was the calculation done? and for what time-base? If the ratio turned out to be 5% I would call it small (not "tiny," but small!), especially because the ratio of paid-gold articles (not all gold articles) to all articles annually is probably also small. But instead of discussing likely adjectives, would it not be more useful to see and discuss the data? SH > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
