Hi David,
I'm going to request that we move this conversation to our list of research projects. We've pretty much exhausted this topic here (and exhausted people as well!). The key components of this study might look like this---let me know how this looks to you:
Where we’re at now with this conversation is that you’re enthusiastic and everyone else is terrified, so we need to get on the same page before moving forward. So adding this to our list, here’s what we have now:
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
Hyperbole---sorry. But yes---as OSI2017 delegates noted, the OSI list can be a pain in this regard. So, in response to this concern, we’ll be introducing better (or at least different) tools soon for digging into contentious and/or complicated issues like this one.
Best,
Glenn
Hi David,
I'm going to request that we move this conversation to our list of research projects. We've pretty much exhausted this topic here (and exhausted people as well!). The key components of this study might look like this---let me know how this looks to you:
- How rapidly is the current scholcomm publishing system changing?
- What forces are driving this change (and where are they more significant, and why)?
- What kinds of changes are happening (and where)?
- What are the pros and cons of these changes (both hypothetical and actual/measured)?
- What should be the response of the scholcomm community to these changes (e.g., enforce international standards for peer review)?
Where we’re at now with this conversation is that you’re enthusiastic and everyone else is terrified, so we need to get on the same page before moving forward. So adding this to our list, here’s what we have now:
- Cash incentives to publish: No group yet. Any interest?
- Publisher profit margins: A group of industry leaders and analysts might be willing to pull together an authoritative report on the profit margins of commercial publishers but we haven’t started these conversations yet.
- Open protocols: No group discussion or work yet. Several folks stepped forward with interest, however.
- Blacklist: Should a new blacklist be developed? A whitelist? Some other solution? Various ideas were discussed at length both on and off list and in a side group but we didn’t reach a final decision.
- APCgrabber.com: A website that pulls in data on APCs for easy comparison or where publishers can self-post pricing info (granted there would be lots of caveats). We also referred to this idea as pricechopperscience.com. Of course, this idea preceded the blacklist discussion---we wouldn’t want to create a tool that makes it easier for fraud dealers to peddle their wares.
- Open impacts: Follow-up on conversation regarding hotly-disputed CPIP report on open impacts, this time looping in one of the report’s authors.
- iTunes model: Maybe survey students, researchers, publishers, etc. for potential interest? Or has this idea been dismissed?
- Predatory publishing: What do we know about the dimensions of this issue? We have spoken about blacklists, APCs and cash incentives; more broadly, the entire issue of predatory publishing deserves a deeper look. We’ve heard about the fraud, deception, and so on, but is there also “good†in this system insofar as giving scholars a way to publish more quickly and cheaply?
I’ll say this one more time and then I promise I’ll stop.
Nobody calls a journal “predatory†because its APCs are low, or because it provides little or no peer review. Non-peer-reviewed journals have always existed, they have a legitimate place in the scholarly ecosystem, and no one (to my knowledge) has ever believed otherwise.
A journal gets called “predatory†when it engages in predatory or deceptive practices. Failing to offer peer review is not a predatory or deceptive practice; however, falsely claiming to offer peer review (especially in return for an APC) is. So are falsely claiming to be indexed, falsely claiming to have a high impact factor, falsely claiming editorial board members, falsely claiming affiliation with a learned society, etc. These are the practices that lead a journal to be considered predatory. The fact that these practices often coincide with relatively low APCs does not mean that the journals in question are being punished for having low APCs and light moderation. A low-APC/low-moderation journal that does not claim to be something else will not be branded a “predator†by anyone I know.
That’s the last thing I’ll say in response to this on-list.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
rick.a...@utah.edu
From: < osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us >
Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 1:07 PM
To: " osi20...@googlegroups.com" < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Traditional versus new wave journals?
- Okay, Glenn.
- However I cannot agree with this apparently blanket use of the term "predatory." By accident I seem to have become OSI's representative for the new wave of over 1000 low cost OA publishers and 10,000 journals. Not that I know any of them; I just study them, but I guess diversity starts small like that. That they are as a group predatory in any reasonable use of that term is questionable, to say the least. Perhaps you can find a more neutral term, or create a different topic description so as to separate the new wave issues from the predatory ones.
- David
- At 12:04 PM 9/8/2017, Glenn Hampson wrote:
- Hi David,
- I'm going to request that we move this conversation to our list of research projects. We've pretty much exhausted this topic here (and exhausted people as well!). The key components of this study might look like this---let me know how this looks to you:
- How rapidly is the current scholcomm publishing system changing?
- What forces are driving this change (and where are they more significant, and why)?
- What kinds of changes are happening (and where)?
- What are the pros and cons of these changes (both hypothetical and actual/measured)?
- What should be the response of the scholcomm community to these changes (e.g., enforce international standards for peer review)?
- Where we̢۪re at now with th this conversation is that you̢۪re enthusiastic and nd everyone else is terrified, so we need to get on the same page before moving forward. So adding this to our list, here̢۪s what we have now:
- Cash incentives to publish: No group yet. Any interest?
- Publisher profit margins: A group of industry leaders and analysts might be willing to pull together an authoritative report on the profit margins of commercial publishers but we haven’t ¢t started these conversations yet.
- Open protocols: No group discussion or work yet. Several folks stepped forward with interest, however.
- Blacklist: Should a new blacklist be developed? A whitelist? Some other solution? Various ideas were discussed at length both on and off list and in a side group but we didn̢۪t reach a final decision.
- APCgrabber.com: A website that pulls in data on APCs for easy comparison or where publishers can self-post pricing info (granted there would be lots of caveats). We also referred to this idea as pricechopperscience.com. Of course, this idea preceded the blacklist discussion---we wouldn̢۪t want to create a tool that mt makes it easier for fraud dealers to peddle their wares.
- Open impacts: Follow-up on conversation regarding hotly-disputed CPIP report on open impacts, this time looping in one of the report̢۪s authorhors.
- iTunes model: Maybe survey students, researchers, publishers, etc. for potential interest? Or has this idea been dismissed?
- Predatory publishing: What do we know about the dimensions of this issue? We have spoken about blacklists, APCs and cash incentives; more broadly, the entire issue of predatory publishing deserves a deeper look. We’ve¢ve heard about the fraud, deception, and so on, but is there also “good†in this system insofar as giviniving scholars a way to publish more quickly and cheaply?
Thanks Rick,
I think you’ve provided a good stopping point. If anyone wants to be part of this conversation in the new forum to be set up for it, let me know. This group will develop something and then kick it back to the full group for consideration. We have a lot of different perspectives to roll up----not a lot of facts, though, so if anyone has links to surveys, data, etc., send these as well and I’ll add them to the resources list for this group. I agree, David, that this shouldn’t be a study just of predatory (or liar liar pants on fire) journals but of the “new wave” journals as well and that the two shouldn’t be confused.
Best,
Glenn
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abel L. Packer
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:06 PM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Cc: osi2016-25-googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Traditional versus new wave journals?
Dear Glenn
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
David,
A couple of quick questions in an attempt to nudge this along just a bit.
I take it that your working hypothesis is that there is a significant number of those 10,000 journals that do NOT meet that characterization and you are much more interested in studying them since you suspect that they represent an overall positive development by publishing research results that would be unlikely to get published in subscription journals or in the OA journals that have much higher APCs and workflows that emulate the traditional subscription journals.
The corollary to this would be that you feel that a focus on “predatory,” which appears to be applied to all of these low cost journals, regardless of what their actual operations might be, muddies the waters, and impedes the kind of examination of the potential positive impacts of these low cost journals that you believe is warranted.
Scott
T Scott Plutchak | Director of Digital Data Curation Strategies
UAB | The University of Alabama at Birmingham
AB 420M
O: 205-996-4716 | M: 205-283-5538
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4712-5233
Knowledge that will change your world
From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM
To: "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Traditional versus new wave journals?
No Rick.