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.