Librarian removes controversial list of "predatory" journals and publishers
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: Librarian removes controversial list of "predatory" journals and publishers
#2Note that "open access" in the context of academic publishing is a weasel word: it means that the submitters of the article have to pay for it instead of the readers. This can be quite expensive, hence the invention of predatory journals who want the money.
Re: Librarian removes controversial list of "predatory" journals and publishers
#3Note that "open access" in the context of academic publishing is a weasel word: it means that the submitters of the article have to pay for it instead of the readers. This can be quite expensive, hence the invention of predatory journals who want the money.
While this is true on its face, any OA publisher worth their salt offers a fee waiver program, and the expection from Day 1 of OA has been that these costs should be baked into grant applications and funding requests.
Many funding bodies and institutions take care of this for you, having OA funds and assistance to take care of OA fees and to help direct publishing scientists to non-predatory publishers (Elsevier in particular can charge obscene OA fees)and also pick up the tab.
As such, it is very unusual for a Submitting author to have to pay an OA charge.
COI statement: I used to work for an OA-only publisher, but have not been employed there for the last 2 years.
Re: Librarian removes controversial list of "predatory" journals and publishers
#4I'm not familiar with this story but I'd like to learn more about it. Any of you HN readers can explain and/or link to more detailed summary?
Re: Librarian removes controversial list of "predatory" journals and publishers
#5Note that "open access" in the context of academic publishing is a weasel word: it means that the submitters of the article have to pay for it instead of the readers. This can be quite expensive, hence the invention of predatory journals who want the money.
Uh, submitters typically pay for all submissions, either in cash or in the requirement to sign over copyright to the journal.
Open Access is a trend to combatting the walled garden model of scientific publishing, and is perfectly legitimate.
Scammy journals are taking advantage of authors' needs to publish a lot of work in order to advance in their field. They are "open access" not because open access is a scam, but because the journal is a scam and it's hard to get people to pay for subscriptions to a scam journal.
Re: Librarian removes controversial list of "predatory" journals and publishers
#6TL;DR What Jeffrey Beall was doing could be described as one honest man trying to fight the predatory publishing mafia, by nothing else but exposing their misdeeds. Unfortunately, the mafia managed to silence him.
For those who do not know what predatory publishing is, it is basically the "business" similar to diploma mills: they issue crap credentials (by publishing "scientific articles") for a "modest" fee to people who need those credentials to be employed as "scientists", "researchers", and in many positions (including politics) that formally require those. It mostly happens in developing nations...
Re: Librarian removes controversial list of "predatory" journals and publishers
#7Hopefully, this is just another step towards a better scientific publishing system. Beall's list had flaws, and people rightfully didn't trust a list made by a single guy without oversight, but it existed to fill an important need. We'll see what system replaces it.
Re: Librarian removes controversial list of "predatory" journals and publishers
#8I'm not familiar with this story but I'd like to learn more about it. Any of you HN readers can explain and/or link to more detailed summary?
On predatory open access journals and Beall's list: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
quote "There is another list—one that journals fear. It is curated by Jeffrey Beall, a library scientist at the University of Colorado, Denver. His list is a single page on the Internet that names and shames what he calls "predatory" publishers. The term is a catchall for what Beall views as unprofessional practices, from undisclosed charges and poorly defined editorial hierarchy to poor English—criteria that critics say stack the deck against non-U.S. publishers."
Re: Librarian removes controversial list of "predatory" journals and publishers
#9I hope someone else takes up the mantle and continues to curate the list. Unfortunately Beall was in a unique position of respect and academic standing where his opinion carried most of the value of the list. On its own without the continued careful vetting by a well-respected and unbiased professional in the scientific community the list is pretty much worthless.
Re: Librarian removes controversial list of "predatory" journals and publishers
#10I'm not familiar with this story but I'd like to learn more about it. Any of you HN readers can explain and/or link to more detailed summary?
On predatory open access journals and Beall's list: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full quote "There is another list—one that journals fear. It is curated by Jeffrey Beall, a library scientist at the University of Colorado, Denver. His list is a single page on the Internet that names and shames what he calls "predatory" publishers. The term is a catchall for what Beall views as unprofessional pract…
Thanks for that link! I was unaware of this trend:
"the data from this sting operation reveal the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing.
"From humble and idealistic beginnings a decade ago, open-access scientific journals have mushroomed into a global industry, driven by author publication fees rather than traditional subscriptions. Most of the players are murky. The identity and location of the journals' editors, as well as the financial workings of their publishers, are often purposefully obscured.