[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

2014-09-26 Thread Jan Velterop 
It may well be a major problem for researchers in lesser developed countries. 
The trouble may be with the credibility of the messengers, here. In Elsevier's 
case the warning can be regarded as mainly self-serving, and in both cases the 
underlying -- and justified -- suspicion is that these warnings are driven by 
an anti-OA sentiment, given that they focus on OA journals only.

That said, there are probably plenty of un-worthwhile, even unsavoury, 
journals, open access as well as toll-access. I'm still missing a Beall-type 
list of the latter. Anyone? (Or does an impact factor of less than 1 for 
journals older than five years suffice as a rough, though practical, guide?)

I'm working on a sustainable solution that should be of particular interest to 
impecunious serious researchers, but I need help. Financial (modest) as well as 
technical (less modest, I'm afraid). Please contact me off-line if you can 
offer assistance. 

Jan Velterop



> On 23 Sep 2014, at 23:51, Dana Roth  wrote:
> 
> If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to 
> issue a "Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers" ... See:
> 
> http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers
> 
> or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers 
> at:
> 
> http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
> 
> I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these 
> publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Dana L. Roth
> Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> dzr...@library.caltech.edu
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
> 
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of David 
> Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:30 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory 
> Journals"
> 
> Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
> academic publishing,
> 
> No it hasn’t. It’s a minor annoyance, at most.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das 
> mailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology
> by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. 
> Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip
> Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742.
> 
> Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and 
> communication technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the 
> advent and rise of electronic publications, especially predatory open-access 
> journals, has resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, 
> impediment and urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions.
> Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
> academic publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and 
> researchers. The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical 
> example of ‘predatory publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race 
> to publish. The urge to publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two 
> manifestations, i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be 
> associated with the urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, 
> mihi itch (loosely) explains the behaviour of researchers, especially 
> biologists publishing in predatory journals yearning to see their name/s 
> associated with a new ‘species name’. Most predatory journals do not have an 
> IF, and authors publishing in such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ 
> (read without factor), and popularity by seeing their names appear in print 
> media. This practice has most often led to the publication of substandard 
> papers in many fields, including ichthyology.
> 
> Download Full-text Article: 
> http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/05/0740.pdf
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

2014-09-25 Thread Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) 
Dana,

It would be so sad if you accept that there is a sizeable body of literature 
that might be directly related to your research but that you decide not to read 
it because you can't read it all *and* base your selection of what to read on 
crude criteria not relating to the merits of the individual article. If you 
take a look at the skewed nature of citation frequency of articles in any 
journal and realize that there even is a positive correlation between impact 
factors and retractions in the end you should realize that making a distinction 
in such a crude way is not desirable. That would mean that overall scholarly 
publishing is not functioning anymore, and that it serves more to advance 
careers than to advance science. I do not want to accept that: it would be such 
a waste of talent, money, time etc. and endanger public support and financing 
of science. 

Some suggestions to alleviate this:
- make peer review open (that can still be anonymous if you wish)
- experiment with and invest in post-pub peer review (e.g. PubMed Commons)
- use recommendation systems such as F1000
- next to TOC alerts, also use keyword and citation alerts from Scopus, WoS and 
other A&I services (e.g. Keep Me Posted alerts in SciFinder)
- share the burden of current awareness in a research team
- glance over comments, article level metrics and altmetrics links

And yes, I do intend to remain realistic: if you have given several articles 
from a new journal, a non IF-journal, a non US/European, an Open Access journal 
a chance and they proved to be total rubbish it is completely logical that you 
will be less inclined to read more papers from that journal. But over time, and 
especially if an article is exactly on topic, I would advise to give it another 
chance.

But let's return to the topic of this list: do you know of anybody in your 
institution that has been fooled by a real scam journal? I always ask our 
faculty but have not yet come across any such person. Almost all have received 
soliciting emails, but just tossed them aside. Every once in a while faculty 
approach us with the request to profile a certain journal that they haven't 
heard about before. That is no big deal. So yes, it is a relatively minor 
annoyance, something that worries me much less than the peer review crisis.

Best,
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Dana Roth
Sent: donderdag 25 september 2014 5:55
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory 
Journals"

I agree with Chuck ... and feel it is totally unrealistic to assume serious 
researchers have the time to wade thru anything more than a fraction of what is 
being published.  Is there really anything better than limiting current 
awareness to high quality peer reviewed journals, and SciFinder, etc. for 
retrospective searching for very specific information or review articles?

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of David 
Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:05 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: Siler, Elizabeth; Tokoro, Shoko; Hoon, Peggy
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper   on  
"Predatory  Journals"

I think that every article should be read on it's own merits and it should not 
have value assigned to it just because it has managed to get into a certain 
club (journal).  It is saddening to me that this suggestion should be 
considered even vaguely radical.

When Science carried out its 'Sting' on open access titles there were journals 
on Beall's list that rejected the paper.  Other not on his list (including one 
published under the auspices of Elsevier ) accepted it.  I'm all for context, 
but if we are considering a researcher's future and funding surely we owe it to 
them to judge them on their own merits and not on the arbitrary criteria of one 
chap in Colorado.

David

On 24 Sep 2014, at 10:40, Hamaker, Charles 
mailto:caham...@uncc.edu>> wrote:

So every article from every journal should be read under the assumption that 
peer review markers are a poor way to make a preliminary decision point as to 
whether  the article merits attention?
It's going to be difficult to assume every one is expert enough to judge every 
paper they read solely on the content absent context of labeling or assumption 
of  basic peer review.
 Journal labels provide a context. Are we to ignore that?
Doesn't that make introduction to a literature for novices or

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

2014-09-24 Thread Thomas Krichel 
  Dana Roth writes

> it is totally unrealistic to assume serious researchers have the
> time to wade thru anything more than a fraction of what is being
> published.

  Sure.

> Is there really anything better than limiting current awareness to
> high quality peer reviewed journals,

  Of course there is better. Get yourself a precise topic-focused
  current awareness service that delivers people the papers they need
  to look at based on their topics rather than the outlet that they
  were published, and that delivers them now, rather in years' time
  when the papers have gone through "peer-review" whatever that means.

  I have created such a service for RePEc at http://nep.repec.org.
  I want to work on creating similar services for areas other than
  economics.

-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
  skype:thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

2014-09-24 Thread Dana Roth 
I agree with Chuck ... and feel it is totally unrealistic to assume serious 
researchers have the time to wade thru anything more than a fraction of what is 
being published.  Is there really anything better than limiting current 
awareness to high quality peer reviewed journals, and SciFinder, etc. for 
retrospective searching for very specific information or review articles?

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of David 
Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:05 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: Siler, Elizabeth; Tokoro, Shoko; Hoon, Peggy
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper   on  
"Predatory  Journals"

I think that every article should be read on it’s own merits and it should not 
have value assigned to it just because it has managed to get into a certain 
club (journal).  It is saddening to me that this suggestion should be 
considered even vaguely radical.

When Science carried out its ‘Sting’ on open access titles there were journals 
on Beall’s list that rejected the paper.  Other not on his list (including one 
published under the auspices of Elsevier ) accepted it.  I’m all for context, 
but if we are considering a researcher’s future and funding surely we owe it to 
them to judge them on their own merits and not on the arbitrary criteria of one 
chap in Colorado.

David

On 24 Sep 2014, at 10:40, Hamaker, Charles 
mailto:caham...@uncc.edu>> wrote:

So every article from every journal should be read under the assumption that 
peer review markers are a poor way to make a preliminary decision point as to 
whether  the article merits attention?
It's going to be difficult to assume every one is expert enough to judge every 
paper they read solely on the content absent context of labeling or assumption 
of  basic peer review.
 Journal labels provide a context. Are we to ignore that?
Doesn't that make introduction to a literature for novices or the task of 
anyone reading outside the narrow boundaries of their discipline almost 
impossible?

Chuck Hamaker



Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone


 Original message 
From: David Prosser
Date:09/24/2014 4:38 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)"
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory 
Journals"


Of course, sharp practices such as passing yourself off for another company, 
including the names of Nobel Price winners in your editorial board, repackaging 
papers into fictitious journals at the behest of pharma companies, etc., etc. 
are all to be be deplored.  They are immoral at best and illegal at worst.  But 
they form a tiny part of the overall scholarly communications landscape.  They 
have no more 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing’ than ‘Nigerian' scams have damaged the banking industry or paypal 
scams have damaged the very foundations of e-commerce.

Why does Jeffery Beall find it necessary to compile his list of predatory 
publisher?  Well, I’m not privy to Mr Beall’s motivations, but his writing on 
OA certain makes one pause for thought and perhaps provide some clues:

http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

But maybe I am underestimating the effect these journals have.  Does anybody 
know either:

a) What percentage of the world’s scholarly literature is published in journals 
listed by Mr Beall
b) What percentage of papers from authors in less developed countries goes to 
journals listed by Mr Beall
c) What percentage of the total revenue to publishers (estimated at about 
$10billion annually) goes to publishers listed by Mr Beall

If these journals are really 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing’ then I would expect the percentages to be higher than tiny.

The interesting point that Raghavan et al make is that these journals are 
publishing bad papers and that this is bad for research in the long run.  They 
make the suggestion that papers published in such journals should not be 
counted in research assessment.  Here’s a radical idea - rather than judge the 
quality of a paper based on Mr Beall’s rather arbitrary criteria, why not judge 
it on the quality of the research in the paper itself?

David


On 23 Sep 2014, at 23:51, Dana Roth 
mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu><mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>>
 wrote:

If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to issue 
a "Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers" ... See:

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-f

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

2014-09-24 Thread David Prosser 
I think that every article should be read on it’s own merits and it should not 
have value assigned to it just because it has managed to get into a certain 
club (journal).  It is saddening to me that this suggestion should be 
considered even vaguely radical.

When Science carried out its ‘Sting’ on open access titles there were journals 
on Beall’s list that rejected the paper.  Other not on his list (including one 
published under the auspices of Elsevier ) accepted it.  I’m all for context, 
but if we are considering a researcher’s future and funding surely we owe it to 
them to judge them on their own merits and not on the arbitrary criteria of one 
chap in Colorado.

David

On 24 Sep 2014, at 10:40, Hamaker, Charles 
mailto:caham...@uncc.edu>> wrote:

So every article from every journal should be read under the assumption that 
peer review markers are a poor way to make a preliminary decision point as to 
whether  the article merits attention?
It's going to be difficult to assume every one is expert enough to judge every 
paper they read solely on the content absent context of labeling or assumption 
of  basic peer review.
 Journal labels provide a context. Are we to ignore that?
Doesn't that make introduction to a literature for novices or the task of 
anyone reading outside the narrow boundaries of their discipline almost 
impossible?

Chuck Hamaker



Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone


 Original message 
From: David Prosser
Date:09/24/2014 4:38 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)"
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory 
Journals"


Of course, sharp practices such as passing yourself off for another company, 
including the names of Nobel Price winners in your editorial board, repackaging 
papers into fictitious journals at the behest of pharma companies, etc., etc. 
are all to be be deplored.  They are immoral at best and illegal at worst.  But 
they form a tiny part of the overall scholarly communications landscape.  They 
have no more 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing’ than ‘Nigerian' scams have damaged the banking industry or paypal 
scams have damaged the very foundations of e-commerce.

Why does Jeffery Beall find it necessary to compile his list of predatory 
publisher?  Well, I’m not privy to Mr Beall’s motivations, but his writing on 
OA certain makes one pause for thought and perhaps provide some clues:

http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

But maybe I am underestimating the effect these journals have.  Does anybody 
know either:

a) What percentage of the world’s scholarly literature is published in journals 
listed by Mr Beall
b) What percentage of papers from authors in less developed countries goes to 
journals listed by Mr Beall
c) What percentage of the total revenue to publishers (estimated at about 
$10billion annually) goes to publishers listed by Mr Beall

If these journals are really 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing’ then I would expect the percentages to be higher than tiny.

The interesting point that Raghavan et al make is that these journals are 
publishing bad papers and that this is bad for research in the long run.  They 
make the suggestion that papers published in such journals should not be 
counted in research assessment.  Here’s a radical idea - rather than judge the 
quality of a paper based on Mr Beall’s rather arbitrary criteria, why not judge 
it on the quality of the research in the paper itself?

David


On 23 Sep 2014, at 23:51, Dana Roth 
mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu><mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>>
 wrote:

If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to issue 
a "Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers" ... See:

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers

or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers 
at:

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these 
publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries.



Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu><mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: 
goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org><mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>
 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org><mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>]
 on behalf of David Prosser 
[david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk><mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>]
Sent: Tuesday, Septe

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

2014-09-24 Thread Hamaker, Charles 
So every article from every journal should be read under the assumption that 
peer review markers are a poor way to make a preliminary decision point as to 
whether  the article merits attention?
It's going to be difficult to assume every one is expert enough to judge every 
paper they read solely on the content absent context of labeling or assumption 
of  basic peer review.
 Journal labels provide a context. Are we to ignore that?
Doesn't that make introduction to a literature for novices or the task of 
anyone reading outside the narrow boundaries of their discipline almost 
impossible?

Chuck Hamaker



Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone


 Original message 
From: David Prosser
Date:09/24/2014 4:38 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)"
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory 
Journals"


Of course, sharp practices such as passing yourself off for another company, 
including the names of Nobel Price winners in your editorial board, repackaging 
papers into fictitious journals at the behest of pharma companies, etc., etc. 
are all to be be deplored.  They are immoral at best and illegal at worst.  But 
they form a tiny part of the overall scholarly communications landscape.  They 
have no more 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing’ than ‘Nigerian' scams have damaged the banking industry or paypal 
scams have damaged the very foundations of e-commerce.

Why does Jeffery Beall find it necessary to compile his list of predatory 
publisher?  Well, I’m not privy to Mr Beall’s motivations, but his writing on 
OA certain makes one pause for thought and perhaps provide some clues:

http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

But maybe I am underestimating the effect these journals have.  Does anybody 
know either:

a) What percentage of the world’s scholarly literature is published in journals 
listed by Mr Beall
b) What percentage of papers from authors in less developed countries goes to 
journals listed by Mr Beall
c) What percentage of the total revenue to publishers (estimated at about 
$10billion annually) goes to publishers listed by Mr Beall

If these journals are really 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing’ then I would expect the percentages to be higher than tiny.

The interesting point that Raghavan et al make is that these journals are 
publishing bad papers and that this is bad for research in the long run.  They 
make the suggestion that papers published in such journals should not be 
counted in research assessment.  Here’s a radical idea - rather than judge the 
quality of a paper based on Mr Beall’s rather arbitrary criteria, why not judge 
it on the quality of the research in the paper itself?

David


On 23 Sep 2014, at 23:51, Dana Roth 
mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>> wrote:

If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to issue 
a "Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers" ... See:

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers

or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers 
at:

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these 
publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries.



Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] on behalf of David 
Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:30 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory 
Journals"

Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing,

No it hasn’t. It’s a minor annoyance, at most.

David



On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das 
mailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com><mailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:

Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology
by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. 
Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip
Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742.

Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and communication 
technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the advent and rise of 
electronic publications, especially predatory open-access journals, has 
resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, impediment and 
urgency) for taxonom

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

2014-09-24 Thread David Prosser 

Of course, sharp practices such as passing yourself off for another company, 
including the names of Nobel Price winners in your editorial board, repackaging 
papers into fictitious journals at the behest of pharma companies, etc., etc. 
are all to be be deplored.  They are immoral at best and illegal at worst.  But 
they form a tiny part of the overall scholarly communications landscape.  They 
have no more 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing’ than ‘Nigerian' scams have damaged the banking industry or paypal 
scams have damaged the very foundations of e-commerce.

Why does Jeffery Beall find it necessary to compile his list of predatory 
publisher?  Well, I’m not privy to Mr Beall’s motivations, but his writing on 
OA certain makes one pause for thought and perhaps provide some clues:

http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

But maybe I am underestimating the effect these journals have.  Does anybody 
know either:

a) What percentage of the world’s scholarly literature is published in journals 
listed by Mr Beall
b) What percentage of papers from authors in less developed countries goes to 
journals listed by Mr Beall
c) What percentage of the total revenue to publishers (estimated at about 
$10billion annually) goes to publishers listed by Mr Beall

If these journals are really 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing’ then I would expect the percentages to be higher than tiny.

The interesting point that Raghavan et al make is that these journals are 
publishing bad papers and that this is bad for research in the long run.  They 
make the suggestion that papers published in such journals should not be 
counted in research assessment.  Here’s a radical idea - rather than judge the 
quality of a paper based on Mr Beall’s rather arbitrary criteria, why not judge 
it on the quality of the research in the paper itself?

David


On 23 Sep 2014, at 23:51, Dana Roth 
mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>> wrote:

If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to issue 
a "Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers" ... See:

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers

or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers 
at:

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these 
publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries.



Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] on behalf of David 
Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:30 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory 
Journals"

Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing,

No it hasn’t. It’s a minor annoyance, at most.

David



On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das 
mailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com><mailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:

Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology
by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. 
Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip
Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742.

Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and communication 
technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the advent and rise of 
electronic publications, especially predatory open-access journals, has 
resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, impediment and 
urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions.
Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and researchers. 
The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical example of ‘predatory 
publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race to publish. The urge to 
publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two manifestations, 
i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be associated with the 
urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, mihi itch (loosely) 
explains the behaviour of researchers, especially biologists publishing in 
predatory journals yearning to see their name/s associated with a new ‘species 
name’. Most predatory journals do not have an IF, and authors publishing in 
such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ (read without factor), and 
popularity by seeing their names appear in print

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

2014-09-24 Thread Mark Ware 
It's also part of the reason for the development of new third-party "journal 
selection" services (primarily aimed at researchers in emerging economies), 
such as from Edanz, Research Square and elsewhere

 -Mark
=
Mark Ware
m...@markwareconsulting.com
+44 117 959 3726

> On 23 Sep 2014, at 23:51, Dana Roth  wrote:
> 
> If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to 
> issue a "Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers" ... See:
> 
> http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers
> 
> or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers 
> at:
> 
> http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
> 
> I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these 
> publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Dana L. Roth
> Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> dzr...@library.caltech.edu
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
> 
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of David 
> Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:30 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory 
> Journals"
> 
> Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
> academic publishing,
> 
> No it hasn’t. It’s a minor annoyance, at most.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das 
> mailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology
> by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. 
> Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip
> Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742.
> 
> Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and 
> communication technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the 
> advent and rise of electronic publications, especially predatory open-access 
> journals, has resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, 
> impediment and urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions.
> Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
> academic publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and 
> researchers. The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical 
> example of ‘predatory publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race 
> to publish. The urge to publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two 
> manifestations, i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be 
> associated with the urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, 
> mihi itch (loosely) explains the behaviour of researchers, especially 
> biologists publishing in predatory journals yearning to see their name/s 
> associated with a new ‘species name’. Most predatory journals do not have an 
> IF, and authors publishing in such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ 
> (read without factor), and popularity by seeing their names appear in print 
> media. This practice has most often led to the publication of substandard 
> papers in many fields, including ichthyology.
> 
> Download Full-text Article: 
> http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/05/0740.pdf
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

2014-09-23 Thread Dana Roth 
If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to issue 
a "Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers" ... See:

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers

or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers 
at:

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these 
publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries.



Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of David 
Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:30 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory 
Journals"

Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing,

No it hasn’t. It’s a minor annoyance, at most.

David



On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das 
mailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology
by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. 
Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip
Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742.

Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and communication 
technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the advent and rise of 
electronic publications, especially predatory open-access journals, has 
resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, impediment and 
urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions.
Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and researchers. 
The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical example of ‘predatory 
publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race to publish. The urge to 
publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two manifestations, 
i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be associated with the 
urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, mihi itch (loosely) 
explains the behaviour of researchers, especially biologists publishing in 
predatory journals yearning to see their name/s associated with a new ‘species 
name’. Most predatory journals do not have an IF, and authors publishing in 
such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ (read without factor), and 
popularity by seeing their names appear in print media. This practice has most 
often led to the publication of substandard papers in many fields, including 
ichthyology.

Download Full-text Article: 
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/05/0740.pdf
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on "Predatory Journals"

2014-09-23 Thread David Prosser 
Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing,

No it hasn’t.  It’s a minor annoyance, at most.

David



On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das 
mailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology
by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. 
Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip
Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742.

Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and communication 
technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the advent and rise of 
electronic publications, especially predatory open-access journals, has 
resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, impediment and 
urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions.
Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and researchers. 
The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical example of ‘predatory 
publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race to publish. The urge to 
publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two manifestations, 
i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be associated with the 
urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, mihi itch (loosely) 
explains the behaviour of researchers, especially biologists publishing in 
predatory journals yearning to see their name/s associated with a new ‘species 
name’. Most predatory journals do not have an IF, and authors publishing in 
such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ (read without factor), and 
popularity by seeing their names appear in print media. This practice has most 
often led to the publication of substandard papers in many fields, including 
ichthyology.

Download Full-text Article: 
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/05/0740.pdf
___
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