The Predator Effect – Fraud in the Scholarly Publishing Industry: An Interview with Simon Linacre - The Scholarly Kitchen

peter.suber's bookmarks 2022-11-28


"One issue I wanted to put to bed in the book is the complete lack of any necessary tie between open access and predatory journals....

How can a legitimate open access journal, particularly a new start-up that is independent of any of the long-established publishers, demonstrate that it isn’t predatory? 

You’ll notice I have used the term ‘validated’ rather than ‘peer reviewed’, and that’s because we now have several emerging forms of scholarly content that have been validated in different ways than the traditional peer review process. (I say traditional, but peer review itself only became mainstream in the post-war period, so validation itself is perhaps more fluid than people realize.) For a new OA journal, the editors and publishers may decide to adopt peer review and validate it in various ways — by reporting on this process transparently, or by implementing open peer review, or by adopting a post-publication peer review like the F1000 model. I am a Trustee of COPE, and we deal all the time with cases where authors try to subvert systems, and one result of this is that systems offer increasingly better ways for legitimate publishing to flourish in the constant fight against bad actors. So for a new OA journal, I do think there has never been a better time to launch with the support there is for legitimate publishing processes...."


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » peter.suber's bookmarks

Tags: oa.predatory oa.quality oa.credibility oa.peer_review oa.open_peer_review

Date tagged:

11/28/2022, 10:03

Date published:

11/28/2022, 05:03