deciphering between junk and open access publishing
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Renaldo Belfon
Oct 10, 2013, 5:46:01 PM10/10/13
to uwi pgrad assoc.
Colleagues,
The UWI does not have a policy on publishing scholarly work in scientific journals (to the best of my knowledge) but that does not prevent us from discussing this matter.I urge you to take 20 minutes of your day and read the attached article particularly if you are considering sending out material in the near future. I admit that I am a bit sceptical about new open access publishers and personally would not rush to publish with them. However, I am aware of the benefits of open access publishing to the research community and fully endorse oa journals like PLOSone and Scientific Reports which stem from the PLOS and Nature families respectively. These mega- journals provide a wonderful platform to disseminate cross-disciplinary work and are great for scholars seeking a wider audience than those of the "brand name" titles in our respective fields for potentially high impact papers. I welcome feedback and debate on this topic.
Regards,
Renaldo Belfon
Melissa Atwell
Oct 11, 2013, 9:54:59 AM10/11/13
to uwi-dfp-post-gra...@googlegroups.com
Great article. I totally agree with this point of view.
From: uwi-dfp-post-gra...@googlegroups.com [uwi-dfp-post-gra...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Renaldo Belfon [r.be...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 5:46 PM
To: uwi pgrad assoc.
Subject: deciphering between junk and open access publishing
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 5:46 PM
To: uwi pgrad assoc.
Subject: deciphering between junk and open access publishing
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UWI DFP Post-Graduate Association" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uwi-dfp-post-graduate-...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UWI DFP Post-Graduate Association" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uwi-dfp-post-graduate-...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
Chaney St. Martin
Oct 11, 2013, 12:22:45 PM10/11/13
to UWI postgrad
An interesting paper. Thanks Renaldo for the share. However, I can't help but wonder if this is not also a "spoof" paper. While I do understand and appreciate the intention of the author and some points that have been made, contrasting the title of the article against the "methodology" used raises some serious "red-flags" with regards to the possible take-home messages and in my opinion an apparent and unnecessary bias. In this article, the Author himself is guilty of some of the flaws that he used in the spoof paper (pg 62, last 3 paragraphs and 63-64) which is "the absence of a proper control or reference group." This is most adequately captured by the statement by Roos that "if the author had targeted tradi-
tional, subscription-based journals, ...“I strongly suspect you would get the same result.” (pg 65, Coda subsection, paragraph 1). This would have greatly strengthen the author's argument and/or discussions. Since he did not do that I think that he may also be reading as expressed in his words " the well-known cytoxic effect of alcohol/or radiation on cell growth." More so, if critically examined in that context, it can leave us with the distasteful and "leisurely" message of " Don't pay to publish in a journal where there is bad or no peer- review. However, if you don't have to pay and your paper gets published in those traditional, subscription-based journals where there is still bad or no peer review, then that's OK." I suspect that this may not be the message that the author intended to put out there, however in science your message must be compatible with your evidence and reasoning, and in my view, the author has not demonstrated this consistency
This kind of message reminds me of a situation/controversy (read at http://www.nature.com/news/rat-study-sparks-gm-furore-1.11471) with the attached paper, which was published by one of the most reputable Publishers, ELSEVIER in a high impact journal. Do take a read. In short, my comments in short are can we get a more "Balanced view, please?."
Chaney
From: Melissa...@sta.uwi.edu
To: uwi-dfp-post-gra...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: deciphering between junk and open access publishing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:54:59 +0000
tional, subscription-based journals, ...“I strongly suspect you would get the same result.” (pg 65, Coda subsection, paragraph 1). This would have greatly strengthen the author's argument and/or discussions. Since he did not do that I think that he may also be reading as expressed in his words " the well-known cytoxic effect of alcohol/or radiation on cell growth." More so, if critically examined in that context, it can leave us with the distasteful and "leisurely" message of " Don't pay to publish in a journal where there is bad or no peer- review. However, if you don't have to pay and your paper gets published in those traditional, subscription-based journals where there is still bad or no peer review, then that's OK." I suspect that this may not be the message that the author intended to put out there, however in science your message must be compatible with your evidence and reasoning, and in my view, the author has not demonstrated this consistency
This kind of message reminds me of a situation/controversy (read at http://www.nature.com/news/rat-study-sparks-gm-furore-1.11471) with the attached paper, which was published by one of the most reputable Publishers, ELSEVIER in a high impact journal. Do take a read. In short, my comments in short are can we get a more "Balanced view, please?."
Chaney
From: Melissa...@sta.uwi.edu
To: uwi-dfp-post-gra...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: deciphering between junk and open access publishing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:54:59 +0000
Great articl
Renaldo Belfon
Oct 11, 2013, 6:05:34 PM10/11/13
to uwi pgrad assoc.
Chaney,
From: cstm...@hotmail.com
The actual report reads more like an investigative journalism piece than "scientific inquiry" and I doubt/hope John Bohannon -the author- was trying to convince readers that it was the latter. Certainly the article could have been improved by also looking at traditional subscription journals but to his credit the author stated that his target was oa journals from the onset. There are much more rigorous studies out there which also look at traditional journals so one can easily get a more balanced view if desired. I think the article serves as a "wake up call" to academic institutions and so a sketchy design and a bit of sensationalism could be excused once it is recognised especially as the biases of the SCIENCE organisation has always been plain to see.
The fact remains that globally many graduate students are falling into the snares of some of these predatory journals and often do so after seeing faculty members make the same mistakes. Further, I'm afraid that the commercialisation of science has produced a publish at any cost culture where persons actively seek out that easy publication to beef up their CV around appraisal and promotion time. Publication pressure is arguably more severe among the burgeoning post graduate ranks as I'm sure you've all realised by now that there are more of us (job seekers) than there are job openings and it can produce a culture where anything goes once it gives an edge over other job applicants. Thus, I propose that all faculties including our own should move towards developing an oft updated tiered list of preferred titles with the assistance of librarians that graduate students would be directed to and which would be furnished to hiring and promotion committees.
This would not simply be a list of mostly traditional journals and a sprinkling of oa titles like PLOSone as "reputable" publishers are often not as saintly as they seem to be. Elsevier is the current superpower in the world of scientific publishing and annually counts its profits in the unit of billions (not to be confused with millions). However, this publishing behemoth charges libraries very high licensing fees and has been embroiled in one scandal after another. The most famous of these has been the admission that papers showing the products of certain pharma companies in a favourable light were cooked up and published without going through peer review
(more here:http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/05/elsevier-confirms-6-fake-journals-more.html). This suggests that a discussion must first take place on what constitutes a reputable journal or publisher before we move forward.
RB
From: cstm...@hotmail.com
To: uwi-dfp-post-gra...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: deciphering between junk and open access publishing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:22:45 +0000
Chaney St. Martin
Oct 12, 2013, 3:14:18 PM10/12/13
to UWI postgrad
RB,
Lovely discussion and I do agree with some of the points that you made, particularly concerning "developing an oft updated tiered list of preferred titles with the assistance of librarians that graduate students the need". However, amidst the clear message of the article, which is "beware! there are predatory open-access journals out there, where peer-review is poorly done or not done at", I think there are other equally important lessons and skills (critical thinking- debunking the argument and recognising inconsistencies, particularly when a clear methodology is presented, with supporting results and discussion) that we graduate students can learn or develop from a discussion of such an article (particularly in the context of our "dead" journal club). My concern is that too often we are quick to "throw out the baby and keep the bath water", which I do not think is the most desirable at this stage, where attention to details is of paramount importance. Therefore, on the grounds of the worth of this article as a "red-light" or "precautionary tale", I have no query with it. [I have even shared a strategy that I use to select journal at the end of this missive). However, to be quite honest and a bit frank, I think that if this was one of the take home messages, that the article could have been written in a paragraph of 10 lines or less as a note to the editor (a real short note). Of course, it might not have been published, particularly not in a "Science Magazine", which has over 342 volumes and is published by the AAAS ( Advancing Science, Serving Society). Therefore the article goes beyond just a statement or an investigative-popular literature- stance, which is evident by the detailed methodology (results etc.) to one of a "hybrid" or what I would call a "cool" paper- aka- "a conference paper." When that is done, I think it would be remiss of us and unfair to the author not to critique the article, based on what has been presented. Surely one assumes that there was a logical reason why these parts of the article (methodology etc) were included, certainly I hope it was not for padding? But to tell a story. A story that should be judged on its usefulness, compatibility of thoughts and in this case, the evidence presented. And therein lies my concerns. If we do not carefully examine the evidence and discussions, there is a tendency for one to conclude or validate their suspicions that "in open-access journals, peer-review is not readily or rigorously done as in traditional based subscription journal." This conclusion will be arrived at by many even in the absence of data presented for traditional based subscription journal, partly because of a preconceived notion or experiences (which are valid), and because of the writer's discussion. However, at the end of reading this article we ought to ask ourselves, what I think is one of the most relevant question, "should the open-access model or journals be blamed for (or associated with) the poor quality control revealed by this investigation or as the writer puts who's afraid of peer review?" I think that if we are not "lying" with statistics or in this case with methodology, then the resounding answer, is that the "jury is still out" on this one (therefore the question that the author aimed to answer, remains partly unanswered because of poor methodology and if this was a political or conspiracy "schooling", I would surely advocate (with "strong" words like Dr. Lader- Editor in Chief in the article), that this was a "deliberate ploy to undermine the trust in Open-acess journals. The jury is however, not out one where you are at a greater risk of losing your money for research of a questionable quality (which is obvious), or where these journals are popping up from. In all fairness, I hope that this is only one part of John Bohannon, series on such a topic, and the next article is own "traditional subscription based journal."
This brings me to another larger concern that I have, which is the almost "prostitute"-like (excuse for my words) use of science, which is considering and using only evidence that supports your particular point of view. This is most evident on subjects such climate change, and issues related to politics and religion. However, we can save this for another discussion. I really do hope that others join in this discussion. If anything it will help us practice writing.
Strategy for journal selection:
publish in journals with a long history (at least 20 volumes or more), which I experts in my area have published in; journals with a wide readership that is indexed by google scholar (not necessarily google ) and other reputable "indexing" organisations; I have also stayed away from paying to publish papers, mainly because it is "hell" to get money from Graduate Studies and Research (if this is the modus operandus), and my pockets and that of my co-authors, are sometimes surprisingly shallow at these times; I also research the Chief Editor, editorial board and the publishers.]
Chaney
From: r.be...@hotmail.com
Lovely discussion and I do agree with some of the points that you made, particularly concerning "developing an oft updated tiered list of preferred titles with the assistance of librarians that graduate students the need". However, amidst the clear message of the article, which is "beware! there are predatory open-access journals out there, where peer-review is poorly done or not done at", I think there are other equally important lessons and skills (critical thinking- debunking the argument and recognising inconsistencies, particularly when a clear methodology is presented, with supporting results and discussion) that we graduate students can learn or develop from a discussion of such an article (particularly in the context of our "dead" journal club). My concern is that too often we are quick to "throw out the baby and keep the bath water", which I do not think is the most desirable at this stage, where attention to details is of paramount importance. Therefore, on the grounds of the worth of this article as a "red-light" or "precautionary tale", I have no query with it. [I have even shared a strategy that I use to select journal at the end of this missive). However, to be quite honest and a bit frank, I think that if this was one of the take home messages, that the article could have been written in a paragraph of 10 lines or less as a note to the editor (a real short note). Of course, it might not have been published, particularly not in a "Science Magazine", which has over 342 volumes and is published by the AAAS ( Advancing Science, Serving Society). Therefore the article goes beyond just a statement or an investigative-popular literature- stance, which is evident by the detailed methodology (results etc.) to one of a "hybrid" or what I would call a "cool" paper- aka- "a conference paper." When that is done, I think it would be remiss of us and unfair to the author not to critique the article, based on what has been presented. Surely one assumes that there was a logical reason why these parts of the article (methodology etc) were included, certainly I hope it was not for padding? But to tell a story. A story that should be judged on its usefulness, compatibility of thoughts and in this case, the evidence presented. And therein lies my concerns. If we do not carefully examine the evidence and discussions, there is a tendency for one to conclude or validate their suspicions that "in open-access journals, peer-review is not readily or rigorously done as in traditional based subscription journal." This conclusion will be arrived at by many even in the absence of data presented for traditional based subscription journal, partly because of a preconceived notion or experiences (which are valid), and because of the writer's discussion. However, at the end of reading this article we ought to ask ourselves, what I think is one of the most relevant question, "should the open-access model or journals be blamed for (or associated with) the poor quality control revealed by this investigation or as the writer puts who's afraid of peer review?" I think that if we are not "lying" with statistics or in this case with methodology, then the resounding answer, is that the "jury is still out" on this one (therefore the question that the author aimed to answer, remains partly unanswered because of poor methodology and if this was a political or conspiracy "schooling", I would surely advocate (with "strong" words like Dr. Lader- Editor in Chief in the article), that this was a "deliberate ploy to undermine the trust in Open-acess journals. The jury is however, not out one where you are at a greater risk of losing your money for research of a questionable quality (which is obvious), or where these journals are popping up from. In all fairness, I hope that this is only one part of John Bohannon, series on such a topic, and the next article is own "traditional subscription based journal."
This brings me to another larger concern that I have, which is the almost "prostitute"-like (excuse for my words) use of science, which is considering and using only evidence that supports your particular point of view. This is most evident on subjects such climate change, and issues related to politics and religion. However, we can save this for another discussion. I really do hope that others join in this discussion. If anything it will help us practice writing.
Strategy for journal selection:
publish in journals with a long history (at least 20 volumes or more), which I experts in my area have published in; journals with a wide readership that is indexed by google scholar (not necessarily google ) and other reputable "indexing" organisations; I have also stayed away from paying to publish papers, mainly because it is "hell" to get money from Graduate Studies and Research (if this is the modus operandus), and my pockets and that of my co-authors, are sometimes surprisingly shallow at these times; I also research the Chief Editor, editorial board and the publishers.]
Chaney
From: r.be...@hotmail.com
To: uwi-dfp-post-gra...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: deciphering between junk and open access publishing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 18:05:34 -0400
Renaldo Belfon
Oct 28, 2013, 3:00:01 PM10/28/13
to uwi pgrad assoc.
Hello All,
To continue the publishing debate please find attached a journalistic piece on the costs of academic publishing. I have already expressed my scepticism about the quality of some of the new open access (oa) publishers and will now delve further into the issues I have with the practices of subscription based and hybrid journals:
I am currently wittling down a list of journals that I want to submit a series of papers to using some of the criteria mentioned previously. Open access to my research is very high on the list of requirements and I am now able to grasp some of the objections that researchers have with traditional publishers. I have found that society journals like the Soil Science Society of America charges US $800 for their open access option (in addition to page charges) while journals from commercial publishers like Elsevier and Taylor and Francis cost ~ US$3000. This is a bit concerning as the UWI offers postgrads and academic staff an annual grant of US$500 to cover journal costs and I am unable to meet the shortfall (my financial advisor has instituted austerity measures until further notice). Thus, I'm considering not taking up the oa option but like most researchers in the developing world I know what its like to be denied access to a paper you absolutely must read and would like to prevent that happening to someone else. Please inform me about article processing fees in your own fields and it would be great if Shamin Renwick could provide some info on the library's annual subscription costs to agro-environmental journals.
Regards,
Renaldo Belfon
From: cstm...@hotmail.com
To: uwi-dfp-post-gra...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: deciphering between junk and open access publishing
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:14:18 +0000
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages