Rédaction Médicale et Scientifique: L'Open Access n'est pas la panacée... parmi les risques, il y a les revues prédatrices !

From Google Translate: "he American Society of Hematology (ASH) publishes a review ASH Clinical News with analyzes of congresses, ananlyses of relevant articles, news of the society and the organization of the profession. ASH has some journals including Blood , which articles in Open Access (OA). In the first issue in January 2017, there is an interesting reflection on the predatory journals entitled 'Predatory Publishing: The Dark Side of the Open Access Movement.'

First, this text reminds an excellent reflection published in October 2016 on the advantages and disadvantages of Open Access. This text by Shalmali Pal lists all the steps of the Open Access since 1994, with the call of Budapest, the creations of BMC then PLOS .. it is well done and corresponds to the basis of a formation on the Open Access: you can use it with confidence. There is a glossary of Open Access: super. The conclusion is conservative and he's right. 'OA is Certainly not a panacea, along with the promise, there are problems The sustainability of the OA business model, and whether it can AFFORD to mount a strict peer review process, is still undetermined. The OA movement Represents a cultural shift in scientific publishing. Without practices in place to Ensure That That knowledge is as accurate and proper as possible, HAVING people buy into That new model will be an uphill battle .'"