You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
Glenn Hampson
Alice Meadows has written an excellent piece in today’s Scholarly Kitchen (http://bit.ly/2ntRfTL) highlighting the recent research work of David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, and Kelly Cobey on “predatory” publishing. Among the researcher’s recommendations are that:
- “…any journal not meeting best practice standards, whether due to intentionally deceptive practices, low resourcing, or lack of knowledge, or otherwise, in our view are nonetheless a poor entity to ‘publish’ in. The term ‘illegitimate journals’ may better reflect the range of journals that fail to meet expected best practice standards.”
- “…there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal”. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem.”*
Best,
Glenn
*Maybe OSI can help with this.
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal”. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem
From: The Scholarly Kitchen [mailto:in...@sspnet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 4:51 AM
To: gham...@nationalscience.org
Subject: Today on The Scholarly Kitchen
|
If you would prefer not to receive daily alerts from The Scholarly Kitchen, go here.
|
Rick Anderson
I’ve already asked Alice to put me in touch with the authors of that piece, because I want to volunteer to help them with the consensus-definition project. If the group would like me to act as a go-between with them for OSI, I’d be happy to do that. Otherwise, I’ll just reach out to them as an interested individual.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From:
<rsc...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:05 PM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>, "rsc...@googlegroups.com" <rsc...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
Alice Meadows has written an excellent piece in today’s Scholarly Kitchen (http://bit.ly/2ntRfTL) highlighting the recent research work of David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, and Kelly Cobey on “predatory” publishing. Among the researcher’s recommendations are that:
1. “…any journal not meeting best practice standards, whether due to intentionally deceptive practices, low resourcing, or lack of knowledge, or otherwise, in our view are nonetheless a poor entity to ‘publish’ in. The term ‘illegitimate journals’ may better reflect the range of journals that fail to meet expected best practice standards.”
2. “…there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal”. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem.”*
Best,
Glenn
*Maybe OSI can help with this.
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 |
gham...@nationalscience.org |
nationalscience.org
there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal”. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem
From: The Scholarly Kitchen [mailto:in...@sspnet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 4:51 AM
To: gham...@nationalscience.org
Subject: Today on The Scholarly Kitchen
|
|
|
|
|
If you would prefer not to receive daily alerts from The Scholarly Kitchen, go here.
|
|
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Research & Scholarly Communications Network" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
rscomm+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rsc...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rscomm/003e01d36e03%24bffa8560%243fef9020%24%40nationalscience.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Glenn Hampson
The go-between approach would be great Rick if you’re willing. Since the researchers are hoping to pull together a diverse group of stakeholders---and since we already have that here—this might be a natural fit. At the very least, you can pester this group for input and/or bounce ideas off everyone. It also seems that this group has already plowed a lot of ground---you might be able to pull together a good first draft based on what folks here have already said.
--
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.
Rick Anderson
OK, when I talk to the researchers I’ll mention that I’m reaching out on behalf of OSI, and we’ll see what they say. I would imagine that they’ll take any help they can get, since they made it clear in the interview that they’re struggling to get resources for this project.
Stay tuned, y’all...
Rick
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 |
gham...@nationalscience.org |
nationalscience.org
there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal”. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem
From: The Scholarly Kitchen [mailto:in...@sspnet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 4:51 AM
To: gham...@nationalscience.org
Subject: Today on The Scholarly Kitchen
|
|
|
|
|
If you would prefer not to receive daily alerts from The Scholarly Kitchen, go here.
|
|
David Wojick
David
Alice Meadows has written an excellent piece in today’s Scholarly Kitchen (http://bit.ly/2ntRfTL) highlighting the recent research work of David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, and Kelly Cobey on “predatory” publishing. Among the researcher’s recommendations are that:
- “…any journal not meeting best practice standards, whether due to intentionally deceptive practices, low resourcing, or lack of knowledge, or otherwise, in our view are nonetheless a poor entity to ‘publish’ in. The term ‘illegitimate journals’ may better reflect the range of journals that fail to meet expected best practice standards.”
- “…there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal”. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem.”*
Best,
Glenn
*Maybe OSI can help with this.
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image001.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal”. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem
From: The Scholarly Kitchen [mailto:in...@sspnet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 4:51 AM
To: gham...@nationalscience.org
Subject: Today on The Scholarly Kitchen
OFFICIAL BLOG OF:
New content is now available at
The Scholarly Kitchen…
Dec 5, 2017 by Alice Meadows
Illegitimate Journals and How to Stop Them: An Interview with Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer
Illegitimate – or predatory – journals are on the increase. What’s more, authors from high-, middle-, and low-income countries are now known to be publishing in them. Find out why this is the case and how we can work as a community to help stop their spread, in this interview with Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer of Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, to coincide with their new paper on the topic in Nature Human Behavior.
If you would prefer not to receive daily alerts from The Scholarly Kitchen, go here.
--
Glenn Hampson
I agree David----I think that’s the right question. We’ve discussed the question of accrediting before---maybe conducted by societies---but there was a resounding lack of interest in this idea (or at least concern about the effort involved). A little lower down the scale, are there international standards for journal publishing?---not to be confused with checklists of how to recognize an illegitimate journal, but voluntary compliance lists of features that every legitimate journal should have? In addition to discussing accrediting, we also discussed improving the capacity of “low resourced” journals to get into compliance. Maybe creating a checklist is a start (supplemented by a resource base---how to get indexed, how to format papers, editing standards, etc.)?
Best,
Glenn
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 5:44 AM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
We seem to have some more new jargon -- "low resourcing" -- which causes a journal to be illegitimate. Perhaps they are referring to the very low cost APCs charged by most new wave journals. These certainly do preclude meeting some of the rich journal best practice standards, which can be expensive. Or maybe they mean something else. Is the term defined in the article?
Susan Murray
Rick Anderson
Not to be a broken record, but once again it’s important not to confuse the question of publishing standards with the much less subtle and much more binary issue of fraudulent business practices. There’s no reason for anyone to call a “low-resourced” journal predatory or deceptive if it isn’t lying about its business practices.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From:
<osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 8:02 AM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>, "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
I agree David----I think that’s the right question. We’ve discussed the question of accrediting before---maybe conducted by societies---but there was a resounding lack of interest in this idea (or at least concern about the effort involved). A little lower down the scale, are there international standards for journal publishing?---not to be confused with checklists of how to recognize an illegitimate journal, but voluntary compliance lists of features that every legitimate journal should have? In addition to discussing accrediting, we also discussed improving the capacity of “low resourced” journals to get into compliance. Maybe creating a checklist is a start (supplemented by a resource base---how to get indexed, how to format papers, editing standards, etc.)?
Best,
Glenn
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 5:44 AM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
We seem to have some more new jargon -- "low resourcing" -- which causes a journal to be illegitimate. Perhaps they are referring to the very low cost APCs charged by most new wave journals. These certainly do preclude meeting some of the rich journal best practice standards, which can be expensive. Or maybe they mean something else. Is the term defined in the article?
It also seems confusing to call a journal that publishes legitimate research "illegitimate." Perhaps "substandard" is a better term, given that it is defined as failing to meet certain presumed standards. The question then becomes just what these standards are?
David
On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:00 PM, "Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Alice Meadows has written an excellent piece in today’s Scholarly Kitchen (http://bit.ly/2ntRfTL) highlighting the recent research work of David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, and Kelly Cobey on “predatory” publishing. Among the researcher’s recommendations are that:
1. “…any journal not meeting best practice standards, whether due to intentionally deceptive practices, low resourcing, or lack of knowledge, or otherwise, in our view are nonetheless a poor entity to ‘publish’ in. The term ‘illegitimate journals’ may better reflect the range of journals that fail to meet expected best practice standards.”
2. “…there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal”. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem.”*
Best,
Glenn
*Maybe OSI can help with this.
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)<image001.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal”. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem
From: The Scholarly Kitchen [mailto:in...@sspnet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 4:51 AM
To: gham...@nationalscience.org
Subject: Today on The Scholarly Kitchen
OFFICIAL BLOG OF:
New content is now available at
The Scholarly Kitchen…
Dec 5, 2017 by Alice Meadows
Illegitimate Journals and How to Stop Them: An Interview with Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer
Illegitimate – or predatory – journals are on the increase. What’s more, authors from high-, middle-, and low-income countries are now known to be publishing in them. Find out why this is the case and how we can work as a community to help stop their spread, in this interview with Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer of Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, to coincide with their new paper on the topic in Nature Human Behavior.
If you would prefer not to receive daily alerts from The Scholarly Kitchen, go here.
--
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.
Glenn Hampson
Right. I didn’t mean to conflate these two, and they are being conflated here. There are fraudulent business practices and the hallmarks of these have been spelled out (although it wouldn’t hurt for OSI to do the same---to publish our own official checklist of deceptive practices and links to resources like think-check-submit).
Best,
Glenn
- “…any journal not meeting best practice standards, whether due to intentionally deceptive practices, low resourcing, or lack of knowledge, or otherwise, in our view are nonetheless a poor entity to ‘publish’ in. The term ‘illegitimate journals’ may better reflect the range of journals that fail to meet expected best practice standards.”
Lisa Hinchliffe
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.
Glenn Hampson
Hi Lisa,
Another good question. It’s a quote from the report featured in Alice’s recent TSK post. Even if it isn’t true, wouldn’t it still be in everyone’s best interests to clarify what standards are expected and create a pathway for people to reach these standards?
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
Lisa Hinchliffe
David Wojick
David
Inside Public Access
At 10:09 AM 12/7/2017, you wrote:
Not to be a broken record, but once again it’s important not to confuse the question of publishing standards with the much less subtle and much more binary issue of fraudulent business practices. There’s no reason for anyone to call a “low-resourced†journal predatory or deceptive if it isn’t lying about its business practices.
---
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 Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 8:02 AM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>, "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
I agree David----I think that’s the right question. We’ve discussed the question of accrediting before---maybe conducted by societies---but there was a resounding lack of interest in this idea (or at least concern about the effort involved). A little lower down the scale, are there international standards for journal publishing?---not to be confused with checklists of how to recognize an illegitimate journal, but voluntary compliance lists of features that every legitimate journal should have? In addition to discussing accrediting, we also discussed improving the capacity of “low resourced†journals to get into compliance. Maybe creating a checklist is a start (supplemented by a resource base---how to get indexed, how to format papers, editing standards, etc.)?
Best,
Glenn
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [ mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 5:44 AM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
We seem to have some more new jargon -- "low resourcing" -- which causes a journal to be illegitimate. Perhaps they are referring to the very low cost APCs charged by most new wave journals. These certainly do preclude meeting some of the rich journal best practice standards, which can be expensive. Or maybe they mean something else. Is the term defined in the article?
It also seems confusing to call a journal that publishes legitimate research "illegitimate." Perhaps "substandard" is a better term, given that it is defined as failing to meet certain presumed standards. The question then becomes just what these standards are?
David
On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:00 PM, "Glenn Hampson" < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- Alice Meadows has written an excellent piece in today’s Scholarly Kitchen (http://bit.ly/2ntRfTL) highlighting the recent research work of David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, and Kelly Cobey on “predatory†publishing. Among the researcher’s recommendations are that:
- 1. “…any journal not meeting best pracctice standards, whether due to intentionally deceptive practices, low resourcing, or lack of knowledge, or otherwise, in our view are nonetheless a poor entity to ‘publish’ in. The term ‘illegitimate journals’ may better reflect the range of journals that fail to meet expected best practice standards.â€
- 2. “…there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal†. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem.†*
- Best,
- Glenn
- *Maybe OSI can help with this.
- Glenn Hampson
- Executive Director
- Science Communication Institute (SCI)
- Program Director
- Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
- <image001.jpg>
- 2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
- (206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
- there needs to be a standard and agreed on definition of what constitutes a “predatory journal†. The definition and agreement must come from all stakeholders, not just one group in isolation. Our hope is to raise funds to be able to bring together a group of leaders from each stakeholder group for an in person meeting to gain consensus on this issue before proceeding with further activities to address the problem. It will be important to evaluate and track the success of any interventions generated to address the problem
- From: The Scholarly Kitchen [mailto:in...@sspnet.org]
- Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 4:51 AM
- Subject: Today on The Scholarly Kitchen
- OFFICIAL BLOG OF:
![mage removed by sender. The Scholarly Kitchen]()
New content is now available at
- The Scholarly Kitchen…
- Dec 5, 2017 by Alice Meadows
- Illegitimate – or predatory – journals are on the ie increase. What’s more, authors from high-, middle-, and low-income countries are now known to be publishing in them. Find out why this is the case and how we can work as a community to help stop their spread, in this interview with Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer of Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, to coincide with their new paper on the topic in Nature Human Behavior.
- READ MORE
Glenn Hampson
Agreed all around Lisa. The good folks on this list have been excellent interrogators over the years so please keep at it. Let me see if I’ve got this correct so far (and I apologize if this is off-track---this is also just a starting point for conversation):
- At present, there are no international standards for journal publishing (there are best practices guidelines, ethics guidelines, internal standards, etc., but no list that says a journal must do x, y and z).
- If journal standards were to be developed, there shouldn’t be a single standard of excellence. Would minimum standards be okay?
- These standards should apply to journals, not publishers (to the end products, not the producers)
- These standards should be voluntary for now---not accreditation standards
- We (OSI) should join NIH in discouraging publishing in journals that are deceptive (as defined by the FTC and others)
- We (OSI) should begin the process of improving the capacity of journals that aren’t meeting standards, and over time, discourage publishing in these journals if they don’t improve
This thread is an attempt to address the issue that’s left in the wake of the deceptive journals issue---the fact that even if we move strongly to isolate deceptive journals and call out deceptive practices, there are still a great many journals that aren’t carrying research the way we expect (as David has noted). This might mean they’re conducting peer review that’s really just editorial review, covering fields that aren’t actual science, and so on---not “deceptive” practices, but not accepted practices either. So how do we address the concerns posed by this group of journals?
Once we can get a head of steam on this we can create a Slack group for folks who are interested.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Lisa Hinchliffe [mailto:lisali...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 8:11 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>; David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
Yes, I know where the quote is from but if it is going to be the basis from which one builds a system it should be interrogated for truth. So, FWIW, I think it is fine to articulate standards and pathways. But, I question as well if there is really a single standard of excellence. And, I definitely think it is important to decouple whether a publisher (or publication - which is another difference that gets conflated a lot in these discussions) attains a given standard and whether it is a good place to publish. Lisa
Lisa Hinchliffe
Joyce Ogburn
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.
Rick Anderson
But the “standards” on which the FTC injunction focuses are simple standards of honesty. Look at the behaviors OMICS et al. are told to stop engaging in (see pages 16-19 of the order): every single one of them is a deceptive behavior. All of the things the defendants are positively required to do involve disclosure of their practices. None of them has to do with editorial quality or standards. The FTC finding is very tightly focused on deceptive behavior. If it sets any kind of precedent for journal publishers generally, it’s a precedent that says “don’t lie about your publishing practices.”
Rick
OFFICIAL BLOG OF:
New content is now available at
The Scholarly Kitchen…
Dec 5, 2017 by Alice Meadows
Illegitimate Journals and How to Stop Them: An Interview with Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer
Illegitimate – or predatory – journals are on the ie increase. What’s more, authors from high-, middle-, and low-income countries are now known to be publishing in them. Find out why this is the case and how we can work as a community to help stop their spread, in this interview with Kelly Cobey and Larissa Shamseer of Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, to coincide with their new paper on the topic in Nature Human Behavior.
--
Glenn Hampson
We can certainly rephrase this (I didn’t mean to suggest that the FTC definition should be the standard). For instance, we’ve discussed here what kind of practices we might consider deceptive----Rick’s red light yellow light model. And then there’s the Think-Check-Submit model, COPE’s model and others.
As for the publisher/journal distinction, the FTC action targeted publishers whose portfolios (at least in the case of OMICS) each included hundreds of deceptive journals. But when individual authors are trying to decide where to publish and why, their point of contact is going to be with the journal---is it indexed, is it advertising a fake impact factor, etc. So while it makes perfect sense for FTC regulatory action to target producers, it might make sure sense for OSI guidelines to focus on the journal. Yes no maybe?
From: Lisa Hinchliffe [mailto:lisali...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:10 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>; David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
I'm not sure on #5. I'll need someone more educated about regulation and the FTC to help refine:
Glenn Hampson
I’m incorporating David’s points about regulation into this list (or attempting to) and also correcting for the FTC definition question. New items are in red.
- At present, there are no international standards for journal publishing (there are best practices guidelines, ethics guidelines, internal standards, etc., but no list that says a journal must do x, y and z).
- If journal standards were to be developed, there shouldn’t be a single standard of excellence. Would minimum standards be okay?
- These standards should apply to journals, not publishers (to the end products, not the producers)
- These standards should be voluntary for now---not accreditation standards
- We (OSI) should create (and promote through the RSComm website) an accepted definition of what constitutes deceptive publishing. Maybe this is followed up with a blacklist, maybe not---but at minimum we agree on the definition.
- We (OSI) should join NIH in discouraging publishing in journals that are deceptive (as defined by OSI)
- We (OSI) should begin the process of improving the capacity of journals that aren’t meeting standards, and over time, discourage publishing in these journals if they don’t improve
- We (OSI) should carefully review the recent FTC ruling against OMICS and provide feedback to the agency on whether the discussion section of this ruling contains language that might lead to unintended consequences for scholarly publishing (such as defining peer review too rigidly). We should also request input on what kinds of new requirements would be created for the industry (like disclosing APCs in all calls for papers). I have to assume that many publishers are on top of this already, though. Is this an area where we can/should all collaborate (providing a sort of broad scholcomm perspective on this---not a lobbying effort but a joint comment?)
From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:56 AM
To: 'Lisa Hinchliffe' <lisali...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Rick Anderson' <rick.a...@utah.edu>; 'David Wojick' <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
We can certainly rephrase this (I didn’t mean to suggest that the FTC definition should be the standard). For instance, we’ve discussed here what kind of practices we might consider deceptive----Rick’s red light yellow light model. And then there’s the Think-Check-Submit model, COPE’s model and others.
As for the publisher/journal distinction, the FTC action targeted publishers whose portfolios (at least in the case of OMICS) each included hundreds of deceptive journals. But when individual authors are trying to decide where to publish and why, their point of contact is going to be with the journal---is it indexed, is it advertising a fake impact factor, etc. So while it makes perfect sense for FTC regulatory action to target producers, it might make sure sense for OSI guidelines to focus on the journal. Yes no maybe?
From: Lisa Hinchliffe [mailto:lisali...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:10 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>; David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
I'm not sure on #5. I'll need someone more educated about regulation and the FTC to help refine:
Rick Anderson
With regard to point #8 below, and strictly for what it’s worth, earlier this week (in the Scholarly Kitchen) I offered some discussion of the preliminary injunction against OMICS et al.:
Please note that I’m not putting this forward as the last word (or anything close to it), but some might find it helpful as a starting point.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From:
<osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 12:54 PM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
I’m incorporating David’s points about regulation into this list (or attempting to) and also correcting for the FTC definition question. New items are in red.
1. At present, there are no international standards for journal publishing (there are best practices guidelines, ethics guidelines, internal standards, etc., but no list that says a journal must do x, y and z).
2. If journal standards were to be developed, there shouldn’t be a single standard of excellence. Would minimum standards be okay?
3. These standards should apply to journals, not publishers (to the end products, not the producers)
4. These standards should be voluntary for now---not accreditation standards
5. We (OSI) should create (and promote through the RSComm website) an accepted definition of what constitutes deceptive publishing. Maybe this is followed up with a blacklist, maybe not---but at minimum we agree on the definition.
6. We (OSI) should join NIH in discouraging publishing in journals that are deceptive (as defined by OSI)
7. We (OSI) should begin the process of improving the capacity of journals that aren’t meeting standards, and over time, discourage publishing in these journals if they don’t improve
8. We (OSI) should carefully review the recent FTC ruling against OMICS and provide feedback to the agency on whether the discussion section of this ruling contains language that might lead to unintended consequences for scholarly publishing (such as defining peer review too rigidly). We should also request input on what kinds of new requirements would be created for the industry (like disclosing APCs in all calls for papers). I have to assume that many publishers are on top of this already, though. Is this an area where we can/should all collaborate (providing a sort of broad scholcomm perspective on this---not a lobbying effort but a joint comment?)
From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:56 AM
To: 'Lisa Hinchliffe' <lisali...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Rick Anderson' <rick.a...@utah.edu>; 'David Wojick' <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
We can certainly rephrase this (I didn’t mean to suggest that the FTC definition should be the standard). For instance, we’ve discussed here what kind of practices we might consider deceptive----Rick’s red light yellow light model. And then there’s the Think-Check-Submit model, COPE’s model and others.
As for the publisher/journal distinction, the FTC action targeted publishers whose portfolios (at least in the case of OMICS) each included hundreds of deceptive journals. But when individual authors are trying to decide where to publish and why, their point of contact is going to be with the journal---is it indexed, is it advertising a fake impact factor, etc. So while it makes perfect sense for FTC regulatory action to target producers, it might make sure sense for OSI guidelines to focus on the journal. Yes no maybe?
From: Lisa Hinchliffe [mailto:lisali...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:10 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>; David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
I'm not sure on #5. I'll need someone more educated about regulation and the FTC to help refine:
We (OSI) should join NIH in discouraging publishing in journals that are deceptive (as defined by the FTC and others)
Did the FTC identify individual journals as deceptive, or the publisher? If the former, then only discourage for those journals or the rest in the publisher portfolio as well?
Lisa
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Agreed all around Lisa. The good folks on this list have been excellent interrogators over the years so please keep at it. Let me see if I’ve got this correct so far (and I apologize if this is off-track---this is also just a starting point for conversation):
1. At present, there are no international standards for journal publishing (there are best practices guidelines, ethics guidelines, internal standards, etc., but no list that says a journal must do x, y and z).
2. If journal standards were to be developed, there shouldn’t be a single standard of excellence. Would minimum standards be okay?
3. These standards should apply to journals, not publishers (to the end products, not the producers)
4. These standards should be voluntary for now---not accreditation standards
5. We (OSI) should join NIH in discouraging publishing in journals that are deceptive (as defined by the FTC and others)
6. We (OSI) should begin the process of improving the capacity of journals that aren’t meeting standards, and over time, discourage publishing in these journals if they don’t improve
This thread is an attempt to address the issue that’s left in the wake of the deceptive journals issue---the fact that even if we move strongly to isolate deceptive journals and call out deceptive practices, there are still a great many journals that aren’t carrying research the way we expect (as David has noted). This might mean they’re conducting peer review that’s really just editorial review, covering fields that aren’t actual science, and so on---not “deceptive” practices, but not accepted practices either. So how do we address the concerns posed by this group of journals?
Once we can get a head of steam on this we can create a Slack group for folks who are interested.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Lisa Hinchliffe [mailto:lisali...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 8:11 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>; David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
Yes, I know where the quote is from but if it is going to be the basis from which one builds a system it should be interrogated for truth. So, FWIW, I think it is fine to articulate standards and pathways. But, I question as well if there is really a single standard of excellence. And, I definitely think it is important to decouple whether a publisher (or publication - which is another difference that gets conflated a lot in these discussions) attains a given standard and whether it is a good place to publish. Lisa
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Hi Lisa,
Another good question. It’s a quote from the report featured in Alice’s recent TSK post. Even if it isn’t true, wouldn’t it still be in everyone’s best interests to clarify what standards are expected and create a pathway for people to reach these standards?
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
1. “…any journal not meeting best practice standards, whether due to intentionally deceptive practices, low resourcing, or lack of knowledge, or otherwise, in our view are nonetheless a poor entity to ‘publish’ in. The term ‘illegitimate journals’ may better reflect the range of journals that fail to meet expected best practice standards.”
Glenn Hampson
Thanks Rick,
For the benefit of our listserv members, here are your bullet points regarding what the FTC ruling is taking issue with:
- Falsely claiming to provide rigorous peer review of articles submitted for publication in their journals;
- Claiming as “editors” individuals who never received manuscripts to review or edit, or who never even agreed to be appointed as editors — some of whom say that OMICS ignored or refused their demands that they be removed from journal mastheads;
- Sending solicitations to potential authors on behalf of other academics, without the latter’s permission or knowledge;
- Giving their journals names “nearly identical to other respected journals, which has led to consumers mistakenly submitting articles to Defendants’ journal”;
- Failing to disclose publication fees to authors until after their articles had been submitted and published, then levying those fees on the authors, continuing to demand payment after the authors had requested that their articles be withdrawn;
- Misrepresenting the Impact Factors of their journals;
- Falsely claiming that their journals are included in prestigious professional and academic indexes;
- Organizing putatively academic or professional conferences and seeking to increase attendance by falsely advertising the participation of respected individuals (who have, in some cases, had to resort to legal action in order to get their names removed from the conference advertisements).
What point #8 of our proposed “action list” is getting at are the proposed definitions on which the FTC’s remedies will be based. But you know, rereading the injunction again (http://bit.ly/2AHYA8b) I’m not seeing the language that concerns you, David---narrowly defining peer review, requiring APC disclosure, etc. I also thought this was there on my first read but my eyes must be tired today and I’m not finding anything now. Can you please point out which line(s) you’re referring to? If there’s no there there, we can certainly take out this point.
Thanks,
Glenn
Rick Anderson
Glenn, the requirement to disclose APCs is on page 6 under the header “Deceptive Failure to Disclose Publishing Fees.” OMICS stands accused of hiding their fees until after publication, and then “disclosing” their fees by sending invoices (surprise!).
The injunction contains no narrow definition of peer review. It refers to peer review only in broad terms, and at no point enjoins the defendants to provide it (only to refrain from lying about providing it).
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Lisa Hinchliffe [mailto:lisali...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 8:11 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>; David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
Yes, I know where the quote is from but if it is going to be the basis from which one builds a system it should be interrogated for truth. So, FWIW, I think it is fine to articulate standards and pathways. But, I question as well if there is really a single standard of excellence. And, I definitely think it is important to decouple whether a publisher (or publication - which is another difference that gets conflated a lot in these discussions) attains a given standard and whether it is a good place to publish. Lisa
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Hi Lisa,
Another good question. It’s a quote from the report featured in Alice’s recent TSK post. Even if it isn’t true, wouldn’t it still be in everyone’s best interests to clarify what standards are expected and create a pathway for people to reach these standards?
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
Anthony Watkinson
I do not want to break in to a correspondence which I have only glanced at but it may be relevant if I refer to a survey we (CIBER and Carol Tenopir’s UTK group) did for Sloan (2013-14) which included an international survey not just developed countries for the Sloan Foundation and (without looking back at our publications and report) my memory is that there was a consensus that there was something called “proper” peer review that everyone felt was generally recognised. I personally was surprised that no-one questioned the PLOS One methodology only mission. Maybe (as we have now discovered with our current work) they just thought PLOS One was a specially quick journal BUT nobody picked up the different approach to peer review.
Anthony
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Hampson
Sent: 07 December 2017 19:54
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
David Wojick
David Wojick
<image001.jpg>
From: Lisa Hinchliffe [mailto:lisali...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 8:11 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>; David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: You say predatory, and I say deceptive. You say new wave, and I say illegitimate.
Yes, I know where the quote is from but if it is going to be the basis from which one builds a system it should be interrogated for truth. So, FWIW, I think it is fine to articulate standards and pathways. But, I question as well if there is really a single standard of excellence. And, I definitely think it is important to decouple whether a publisher (or publication - which is another difference that gets conflated a lot in these discussions) attains a given standard and whether it is a good place to publish. Lisa
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Hi Lisa,
Another good question. It’s a quote from the report featured in Alice’s recent TSK post. Even if it isn’t true, wouldn’t it still be in everyone’s best interests to clarify what standards are expected and create a pathway for people to reach these standards?
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image001.jpg>
Rick Anderson
> Yes, journals are not required to do peer review. The requirement is that if you say you do
> peer review then you must do a certain kind or amount.
Not exactly. The requirement is that if you _offer peer review in return for money_, you must actually provide peer review. In other words, OMICS is enjoined from defrauding its authors. (I doubt that simply lying about providing peer review would have brought OMICS to the attention of the FTC – the problem is that they offer peer review in return for a payment, and then seem not to actually provide the promised service.)
> This raises the legal question as to what that kind or amount is?
That’s not actually the question here. In fact, just the opposite: the injunction takes it as given that “under standard industry practice, the peer review process often takes several weeks or even months and involves multiple rounds of substantive feedback from experts in the related field” (see page 5). David, as you’ve pointed out yourself, you do not know much about journal publishing, so as someone who has worked as an editor, who has written many peer-reviewed articles, and who has served as a peer reviewer for many articles, let me assure you that the Court’s understanding of the “standard industry practice” with regard to peer review is accurate. Obviously, the industry standard isn’t the amount of time it takes in and of itself; the industry standard is to provide actual, meaningful review—which, when it’s actually done, takes quite a bit of time. When a publisher claims to provide real and meaningful peer review, but manages to publish submitted articles within a matter of days, it’s reasonable to infer (as the Court did) that something substantially less than real and meaningful peer review is being provided. Again, though, the problem isn’t the quality of the peer review they provide; the problem is the fraud. I doubt very much that this would be a matter for regulatory oversight by the FTC if it weren’t for the fact that these publishers are charging for the service in question.
David, if you’re interested in learning about how peer review works, there’s a good one-page primer at https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Glenn Hampson
Hi David,
Thanks. Since neither of us are lawyers, maybe one of the dozen or so legal experts on this list can help us figure this out. Here’s where the ruling mentions peer review (page 4 of the injunction):
1) Misrepresentations Regarding Journal Publishing
The evidence produced by the FTC demonstrates that Defendants engaged in probable
misrepresentations regarding journal publishing. On the OMICS website, for example, OMICS
makes numerous representations indicating that it follows standard peer-review practices. (See
PX12 Att. L at 657, 773, 748, Ex. 12 to Mot. for Prelim Inj., ECF No. 9-12).1 Under standard
industry practice, the peer review process often takes several weeks or even months and
involves multiple rounds of substantive feedback from experts in the related field. (See PX13
¶¶ 9–10). In contrast, the FTC has provided evidence that Defendants’ peer review practices, in
numerous instances, took a matter of days and contained no comments or substantive feedback.
(See PX04 ¶ 4; PX07 ¶ 4; PX06 ¶¶ 5–6; PX09 ¶ 5; PX10 ¶ 10).
So, what you’re saying David, is that the court has decided there’s such a thing as “standard peer-review practices,” and that OMICS clearly is not following them. Correct? The latter part of this statement is true (that OMICS is lying about following standard practices---because it’s practices are clearly not what the industry considers standard peer review). But it’s the former part of this statement that you find problematic---that there is such a thing as “standard industry practice” to begin with (or at least that this practice hasn’t been precisely defined). Correct? According to the language in the above paragraph, is there supposed to be an “Attachment L” where peer review is defined (if so, the copy of the injunction posted online seems to be missing this)? It isn’t defined in the definitions section either.
So to our legal beagles, is this a thing? If a business says it’s a car wash, and people pay for a car wash, but their car only gets blow-dried instead, is this okay? Do there need to be “standard car wash practices” written down somewhere? Or is it sufficient that the community of car wash devotees has a reasonable understanding of what car wash means, and that if one runs a car wash and doesn’t actually wash your car, then they are being deceptive (as opposed to original thinkers)?
That’s item one David. You also mentioned you were concerned about new requirements regarding APC disclosure. Are these requirements also inferred from the general language of this court order or is there some specific paragraph we should reference?
Thanks,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org