Comments on: Academic spam and open access publishing

By: Kpmitton

Kpmitton — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:03:04 +0000

I just look at the lists of editorial reviewers. When a large percentage seem to be ppost docs or scientists without their own lab, beware! I started reviewing papers in my particular subject as a post doc, with demonstrated results in my field, but no one put me on a review board.

Kpmitton
assoc. Prof.

By: Per Ola Kristensson

Per Ola Kristensson — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:02:41 +0000

[...] spam researchers for manuscripts for the most ridiculous journals and “edited books” (here, here and here). The peer-review and quality-control appears to be minimal and the publication fees [...]

By: anon

anon — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:44:24 +0000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/31/real-cost-academic-publishing

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:44:12 +0000

How about setting up a blog to list the academics who publish in such journals?

By: Raymond

Raymond — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:41:07 +0000

Open Access publishing and traditional print publishing will always be attract conflicting opinions – just think Apple and Microsoft. Between those two computer corporations, which is “better”? Apple likes to think its products result from high quality efforts, whereas Microsoft products are the de facto standard in most parts of the world even as many argue that Microsoft products are lower quality. Its the old conundrum: mass appeal versus quality.

Many opinions in this blog reflect the same divide: quality versus mass appeal. One assumption seems safe enough to make: the first open access publishers “out of the blocks” will eventually corner the mass appeal market. At that point the debate might continue but it may very well become a moot point.

All researchers have to make choices: work as best as one can at getting difficult-to-obtain funding for research ideas, compete with other researchers at trying to get the results of such work into “acceptably high ranking journals”, and hope to get into the club of researchers who always get funded, get published, and who as reviewers tend to control what gets published. This dynamic looks like it is being challenged by the option of open access publishing but I predict that the outcome will be no different. Big open access publishers will eventually have to be ranked because we all subscribe to the idea of rankings, quality will rise (as improbable as it presently seems) and thus control of what “good science” gets published will again fall to the big publishers.

The current issues of cost, payment, quality of peer review, track record, methods of solicitation are in my opinion “start-up” considerations. If and when a critical mass of submissions and publishing is reached, those issues will settle and become refined – and of course, just like Japanese cars in the 60s, no one will remember the initial debates.

By: Filippo

Filippo — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:38:08 +0000

I work at the University of California in electrical engineering.
I have received a letter from a “Journal developer” for the Hindawi Publishing Corporation saying “..We are in the process of launching a new peer-reviewed, open access journal titled Dataset Papers in Oncology, which will publish Dataset Papers in all areas of oncology research, and I am writing to invite you to join the Editorial Board of this new journal.”

The interesting thing is that I have nothing to do with oncology. Of course I am going to decline the offer but this seems a clear indication of the randomness of the process. But I am curios, I am going to ask why the invited me.

By: Peter Jones

Peter Jones — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:27:04 +0000

Science is an Editorial business (Elsevier, Springer, IEEE Congress proceedings, INTECH or the International Journal of Pay me $ 300).
They just have different price

By: Eyal Shahar

Eyal Shahar — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:15:22 +0000

Just wondering: has anyone here ever seen a lousy article in a “peer-reviewed” journal (I mean real junk that dress up like science)?

And another question: has anyone ever seen a good-quality article elsewhere?

I have seen many of both. But let’s keep worshiping the peer-review idol “because there is nothing better”–or is there?

By: RF Gillum

RF Gillum — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:53:22 +0000

My criteria for assessing whether Hindawi or other journals are bona fide is whether they are indexed in Pub Med by NLM. If so, it means that the articles will be accessible to serious researchers. Some Hindawi journals are so indexed and others are not. However, well-known print journals, of course, are to be preferred.

By: Leonard Druyan

Leonard Druyan — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:55:32 +0000

Of course open access publishing is a business trying to make money. I would consider it a scam if their on-line repository of publications suddenly ceased to function. However, as long as their server makes the material available in open access, then they deliver what they claim. The method of collecting fees from authors may prejudice the peer review, but there could still be many worthwhile papers hosted by these publishers. Some reviewers and editors will be more conscientious and produce a better product. Today we read most journals on-line anyway, so why not open access? Most journals charge authors, so why not Intech or Bentham?