“Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

General or non-medical topics with information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

“Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

Post by rlstanley » Thu 13 May 2010 23:53

.
We use the term “predatory” cautiously, primarily in an attempt to initially categorize a certain class of Open-Access scholarly publishers with like characteristics. These publishers are predatory because their mission is not to promote, preserve, and make available scholarship; instead, their mission is to exploit the author-pays, Open-Access model for their own profit.


Advisor reviews––Comparative Reviews

“Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers


April 2010

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... PM-itCo7ng
Editor’s Note: This unique comparative review provides a broad overview of nine different Open-Access publishers that use the “author pays” model for supporting their publishing efforts. The same author published a review of Bentham Open (which uses the same publishing model) in the July 2009 issue of The Charleston Advisor and he recommended an analysis of some of the other major players. Since so many publishers are covered in this single article, it is necessary to keep the profiling for each publisher to a reasonable length. However, we believe that seeing such an overview in a single article is very useful.

Scoring: The pricing scores given in the composite score boxes relate to the fees the authors pay upon publication of their manuscripts, and the contract options refer to the license under which the articles are published.

Pricing Options

Each of the publishers reviewed in this article is Open Access and each uses the “author pays” model to support the publication of the journals. The prices described here are the charges an author pays
upon publication of a manuscript. Several publishers, including Academic Journals, Inc. and Knowledgia Review, also make available print subscriptions to their online, Open-Access journals, but this re-
view examines only the publishers’ Open-Access products. We sent an inquiry to each of the publishers that does not state the fee on its Web site and asked for information about fees; none responded.
See article for profiles of the 9 publishers which are:

Academic Journals
Academic Journals, Inc
ANSINetswork
Dove Press
Insight Knowledge
Knowledgia Review
Libertas Academia
Science Publications
Scientific Journals International

Critical evaluation

All the publishers covered in this review fall into the category called gold Open Access. In gold Open Access “the author or author institution can pay a fee to the publisher at publication time, the publisher thereafter making the material available ‘free’ at the point of access.”4 This model is often called the “author pays” model of Open Access. Publishers like the ones we review here are beginning to be the object of much criticism. Stevan Harnad explains, “There seems to be a growing epidemic of fast Gold-OA journal-fleet start-ups, based on next to no scholarly/scientific or publishing experience or expertise, and relying heavily on online spamming.”5 Proponents of Open Access are beginning to realize that these “predatory,” Open Access publishers are giving the Open Access movement a bad name.

We use the term “predatory” cautiously, primarily in an attempt to initially categorize a certain class of Open-Access scholarly publishers with like characteristics. These publishers are predatory because their mission is not to promote, preserve, and make available scholarship; instead, their mission is to exploit the author-pays, Open-Access model for their own profit.

They work by spamming scholarly e-mail lists, with calls for papers and invitations to serve on nominal editorial boards. If you subscribe to any professional e-mail lists, you likely have received some of
these solicitations.

Also, these publishers typically provide little or no peer-review. In fact, in most cases, their peer review process is a façade. None of these publishers mentions digital preservation. Indeed, any of these publishers could disappear at a moment’s notice, resulting in the loss of its content. While we were researching this review, one publisher, Academic Journals, was hacked and the site replaced with radical Islamic propaganda for about a week.

Why would authors pay to have an article published when there are so many free outlets where they could publish, including free Open-Access journals? In many cases, the answer is that the quality of the articles is poor, and they were rejected by the mainstream journals.

The unscrupulous publishers we describe in this review provide an outlet for substandard research. Harnad explains,

A high proportion of Gold OA journals are lesser journals. I
don’t want to make it sound elitist, but they are not the journals
that contain the research that everybody wants and needs the
most. If you look at the top journals, the ones that are likely to
capture 80% of citations, most of those are not Gold OA.”6


It is very easy to set up an Open-Access publishing Web site. An example is the Insight Knowledge site. It is a startup and has no content and could have been set up in a day. Predatory publishers use words
such as “Academic” and “Scientific” in their names to falsely add a veneer of legitimacy to their business.

Practices such as these, according to Harnad, “are now being taken to a grotesque extreme because
of the ease of entry into online publishing and a perceived instability in the traditional journal publishing trade, owing to the growing clamor for OA.”7

The gold Open-Access movement is moving the burden of paying for scholarly publishing from libraries to authors and to the funding agencies, including governmental agencies, that support
scientists’ research. Moreover, the gold Open-Access publishing industry is being tainted by a perfidious group of fast and loose upstart publishers who exploit these funding agencies for their own profit,
agencies that are all too willing to pay the author fees.

There is an organization for Open-Access, scholarly publishers, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, http://www.oaspa.org. With the exception of Dove Press, none of the publishers de-
scribed in this review is a member. The organization has a member code of conduct that lists ethical standards for OA publishers.8 These standards insist on clear contact information on the publisher’s site,
require that all articles undergo peer-review, that journals have editors and editorial boards made up of recognized experts in the field, that fees are clearly stated, that any direct marketing is appropriate and
unobtrusive, and that license information is clearly stated. All of the publishers described in this review fail to meet one or more of these basic ethical standards.

Finally, one of the negative impacts of these predatory Open-Access publishers will be the avalanche of journal articles they are creating. This abundance will make it harder for scholars to keep up with re-
search in their fields, and it will cause online searches to be filled up with links to low-quality research.

According to Philippe Baveye, “… one of the key components of the academic serials crisis is the
unbridled proliferation of journal articles, which seems about to get even more out of hand than it already is … .”9 Libraries and scholarly indexes need to decide how to handle the output from these publishers. Should all research be indexed and promoted in library databases, or should librarians and scholarly indexes deselect low quality, Open-Access journals?
fixed typos
changed colors
Last edited by rlstanley on Fri 21 Jan 2011 23:12, edited 2 times in total.

Martian
Posts: 1944
Joined: Thu 26 Jul 2007 18:29
Location: Friesland, the Netherlands

Re: “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

Post by Martian » Fri 14 May 2010 0:09

I think it's rather likely that the new ILADS guidelines will appear at such an Open-Access publisher...

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

Post by rlstanley » Fri 14 May 2010 0:15

Martian,

The article you posted about Morgellon's here: http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... =10#p21746 was published by Dove Press.
.

Martian
Posts: 1944
Joined: Thu 26 Jul 2007 18:29
Location: Friesland, the Netherlands

Re: “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

Post by Martian » Fri 14 May 2010 0:24

rlstanley wrote:Martian,

The article you posted about Morgellon's here: http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... =10#p21746 was published by Dove Press.
.
Yeah, I noticed that. And since Stricker is from the ILADS, I think they possibly choose this path for the guidelines as well.

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

Post by rlstanley » Fri 14 May 2010 2:23

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php ... -Cure.html

Tuesday, April 27. 2010

Symptoms of Premature Gold OA -- and their Cure
"Gold" Open Access (OA) journals (especially high-quality, highly selective ones like PLOS Biology) were a useful proof of principle, but now there are far too many of them, and they are mostly not journals of high quality.

The reason is that new Gold OA journals are premature at this time. What is needed is more access to existing journals, not more journals. Everything already gets published somewhere in the existing journal quality hierarchy. The recent proliferation of lower-standard Gold OA journals arose out of the drive and rush to publish-or-perish, and pay-to-publish was an irresistible lure, both to authors and to publishers.

Meanwhile, authors have been sluggish about availing themselves of a cost-free way of providing OA for their published journal articles: "Green" OA self-archiving.

The simple and natural remedy for the sluggishness -- as well as the premature, low-standard Gold OA -- is now on the horizon: Green OA self-archiving mandates from authors' institutions and funders. Once Green OA prevails globally, we will have the much-needed access to existing journals for all would-be users, not just those whose institutions can afford to subscribe. That will remove all pretensions that the motivation for paying-to-publish in a Gold OA journal is to provide OA (rather than just to get published), since Green OA can be provided by authors by publishing in established journals, with their known track records for quality, and without having to pay extra -- while subscriptions continue to pay the costs of publishing.

If and when universal Green OA should eventually make subscriptions unsustainable -- because institutions cancel their subscriptions -- the established journals, with their known track records, can convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model, downsizing to the provision of peer review alone (since access-provision and archiving will be done by the global network of Green OA Institutional Repositories), with the costs of peer review alone covered out of a fraction of the institutional subscription cancellation savings.

What will prevent pay-to-publish from causing quality standards to plummet under these conditions? It will not be pay-to-publish! It will be no-fault pay-to-be-peer-reviewed, regardless of whether the outcome is accept, revise, or reject. Authors will pay for each round of refereeing. And journals will (as now) form a (known) quality hierarchy, based on their track-record for peer-review standards and hence selectivity.

I'm preparing a paper on this now, provisionally entitled "No-Fault Refereeing Fees: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed."

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

Post by rlstanley » Wed 26 May 2010 15:23

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/ ... r_tes.html

Fake paper tests peer review at open-access journal
An executive at the New England Journal of Medicine and a Cornell graduate student who submitted a nonsensical paper to an open-access journal to test its peer review policy say it was accepted without comment.

Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at the New England Journal, and Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell, sent a computer-generated manuscript using pseudonyms and the phony affiliation the "Center for Research in Applied Phrenology" to The Open Information Science Journal.

The journal accepted the article, which included this passage:

"In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9]."

Bentham Science Publishers Ltd., which publishes The Open Information Science Journal, did not respond to Globe requests for comment. The case was first reported in The Scientist, with links to The Scholarly Kitchen, where Anderson and Davis blog.


They chose that journal because its publisher had been intensively seeking submissions from authors, even outside their areas of specialty, Anderson said in an interview today.

"They were claiming peer review, and something about how aggressive they were struck us as unusual," he said. "It seemed like a worthwhile experiment."

The open-access model arose to speed publication and make scientific papers more widely available by making them accessible online at no cost. Such journals typically charge authors a fee, in contrast to subscription-only journals, including the New England Journal. The sham authors were asked to pay $800 before they retracted the article.

Davis wrote on the blog about a previous instance in which a different computer-generated article he submitted was rejected by another open-access journal as "incomprehensible."

"While one should be careful not to generalize these results to other Open Access journals using similar business models, it does raise the question of whether, at least in some cases, the producer-pays-to-publish model may unduly influence editorial decision-making," Davis concludes about the more recent case.

Anderson of the New England Journal said it's not the open-access model that's at fault, but lax oversight of the money authors are paying in a publish-or-perish atmosphere.

"A lot of institutions are creating budgets to pay author fees. Money that is not carefully managed is easy to take advantage of," he said, calling for more accountability from librarians, administrators, and companies involved in scholarly communications and not just publishers.

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

Post by rlstanley » Sat 8 Jan 2011 2:44

http://metadata.posterous.com/two-addit ... ry-open-ac

May 30, 2010 Two Additions to my List of Predatory Open-Access Publishers

May 30, 2010
In an earlier posting in this blog, I announced the publication of my Charleston Advisor review "Predatory, Open-Access Scholarly Publishers." The comparative review examines nine different open-access publishers that use the author-pays model to support open-access publishing of so-called scholarly journals.

I researched and wrote the review in January and February, 2010. Since then, two people have let me know about two additional predatory publishers that have been discovered since I researched the original review.

The first one, Medwell Journals, appears to be a brand from the Faisalabad, Pakistan-based firm sci-alert.net. This firm already has several brands and it looks like they are trying to saturate the market with multiple brands. Thanks to Nancy Hunter at Colorado State University for alerting me to this new site.

Medwell hosts 35 online journals. The journals all bear generic titles and include The Surgery Journal, The Cardiology [sic], and The Social Sciences. The lineup also includes Botany Research Journal and Plant Sciences Research. Aren't botany and plant science the same thing?

The second one is International Research Journals, and according to Dr. Mangesh Thorat, who alerted me to the existence of this publisher, it appears to be a spinoff of one of the publishers I reviewed in my original article, namely Academic Journals Inc. This publisher is based in Nigeria, I think, and I base that on some sketchy information on their "contact us" page. They publish ten journals. International Research Journals is among the most entertaining of these bogus publishers because of its funny pictures. The banner at the top of their home page is one of the dumbest I've ever seen. It includes a cut off duckling, and because the photo wasn't wide enough, they had to stitch the photo on to itself to make it fit the page.

Their cover images are even more hilarious. Here is one from the International Research Journal of Biotechnology. As you can see, it looks like a picture of a salad covered by some type of meat or cheese loaf. Who in their right mind would submit a paper to this journal? The cover would be appropriate if it were for the International Research Journal of Ethnic Food.

Even funnier is the cover of the Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences. I mean, what can I say? I guess they are expecting to increase their page view meter with this image or something. It makes me feel sorry for the woman with the sore left side. This journal's coverage is extremely broad, by the way. "Medicine and medical sciences"? That's about as unfocused as you can get. This broad coverage is typical among predatory publishers – they want to accept as many papers as they can and take the author fees that come along with the papers. A broader coverage means more papers. Thank you to Dr. Morat for alerting me to this publisher.

Martian
Posts: 1944
Joined: Thu 26 Jul 2007 18:29
Location: Friesland, the Netherlands

Re: “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

Post by Martian » Sun 9 Jan 2011 1:06

LOL @ the covers of the magazines mentioned in the article. :roll:

Imagine the new ILADS guidelines being "published" in such kind of rubbish journal... :lol:

BTW: Rita, could you repost that great eel magazine cover somewhere? I liked it, it seemed be to all about Lymeland.

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

Post by rlstanley » Sun 9 Jan 2011 3:40

Martian: BTW: Rita, could you repost that great eel magazine cover somewhere? I liked it, it seemed be to all about Lymeland.
See: http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... 430#p23430
.

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers

Post by rlstanley » Fri 21 Jan 2011 23:31

http://www.examiner.com/metadata-in-nat ... publishers

Beall's List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers

By Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado Denver

Updated January, 2011

Predatory, open-access publishers are those that exploit the author-pays model of open-access publishing (Gold OA) for their own profit. Typically, each publisher has a large number of journals, with each title having a broad coverage.

Generally, many titles have little or no content, and many lack editors. Although the publishers purport to have a stringent peer-review process, in fact in many cases the papers are published upon receipt of the author fees, without an authentic review. In effect, the publishers are vanity, scholarly publishers.
Jeffrey Beall
Metadata Librarian and Assistant Professor
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver.

Post Reply