Predatory Publishing Isn't The Problem, It's a Symptom of Information Inequality - Digital Science

"One major topic of conversation among publishers and librarians these days is the rise of predatory publishers. In the past, I’ve been concerned that the discussion has been divisive and used as somewhat of a political football between the Open Access (OA) and traditional publishing communities. Just lately though, I’ve been relieved to see the debate begin to evolve into a more rational discussion about how scholarly communication and the issues surrounding maintaining its integrity are evolving. It seems to me that predatory publishing is not a singular problem but part of a larger issue of information inequality in the digital age. Scholarly Communications Librarian Jeffrey Beall’s list is probably the most widely cited example of an attempt to name and shame predatory publishers. While Beall should be credited with at least bringing the issue to a wider audience, personally, I feel that It’s a little bit of a shame that it’s still so widely referred to and viewed by some as authoritative, having even been featured in the New York Times. Recently, Rick Anderson, Associate Dean for Collections and Scholarly Communication in the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah, gave a very well balanced critique in the Scholarly Kitchen, not just of Beall’s list but of predatory publishing as a concept, which is well worth a read. As Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella point out in their recent, well researched article on LSE’s Impact Blog, there seems to be an underlying bias in Beall’s selection of publishers with an over-selection of publishers based in emerging markets. Jill Emery of Portland State University and librarian Karen Coyle have described this apparent bias ..."