Dear David and dear all ! A short contribution from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) based on the data underlying of this very short paper: http://beta.briefideas.org/ideas/f2e9ebaa34cd5655203c7de332618061
>From a sample of 683 OA articles with APC coming out of FWF funded projects >between 2014 and 8/2015: - 37 articles are from publishers classified as "predatory" by Beal. That is 5.4%. On the first view, congrats to Lars. However, on the second view the analysis shows also: - 33 articles come from MDPI journals which are all listed in DOAJ. - one article is from Hikari (International Journal of Algebra), not listed in DOAJ - three articles are from three journals from SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PUBLISHING, none of them listed in DOAJ The FWF rules from 1/1/2015 say: - Beals list is not an official resource for the FWF. - The FWF covers publication costs if journals are listed in DOAJ. If an Open Access Journal has been founded very recently (in the last 12 months) and is therefore not yet registered in the DOAJ, it has to be clear from the journal’s website that the DOAJ criteria are fulfilled. That is fully in the line with the recommendations of Science Europe: http://www.scienceeurope.org/uploads/PublicDocumentsAndSpeeches/WGs_docs/SE_POA_Pos_Statement_WEB_FINAL_20150617.pdf According to these new rules, we might have been funded 4 articles out of 683 (0.06%) from “dubious” publishers. But we funded these articles before the new rules were in place. To sum up, we see no empirical evidence, at least not for the FWF, that the problem is higher than in former times where the FWF funded “dubious costs” for colour figures, covers, page charges e.g. from subscription journals listed in WoS or Scopus, especially since the exemption criteria of WoS and Scopus are still less transparent as for DOAJ. Best Falk _______________________________________________ Falk Reckling, PhD Strategic Analysis Department Head Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Sensengasse 1 A-1090 Vienna Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861 Mobile: +43-664-5307368 Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at<mailto:falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at> Web: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en<https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/about-the-fwf/organisation/fwf-team/strategy-departments/strategy-analysis/vk/freckling/> Twitter: @FWFOpenAccess ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1326-1766 ________________________________ Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]" im Auftrag von "David Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. September 2015 12:24 An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Betreff: [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<mailto: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<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW: Online-Magazin http://scilog.fwf.ac.at Follow us: www.twitter.com/fwf_at Also see: www.twitter.com/FWFOpenAccess _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
