Some perspective on “predatory” open access journals – Confessions of a Science Librarian 2015-04-01


"Predatory open access journals seem to be a hot topic these days. In fact, there seems to be kind of a moral panic surrounding them. I would like to counter the admittedly shocking and scary stories around that moral panic by pointing out that perhaps we shouldn’t be worrying so much about a fairly small number of admittedly bad actors and that we should be more concerned with the larger issues around the limitations of peer review and how scientific error and fraud leak through that system. I’m hoping my methodology here will be helpful. I hope to counter the predatory open access (OA) journal story with a different and hopefully just as compelling narrative. Fist of all, after gathering together some of the stories about predatory OA journals, I will present some of what’s been written recently about issues in scientific peer review, it’s problems and potential solutions. Then I’ll be presenting a more direct counter narrative to the predatory one. First of all, I’ll present some information about the fantastic resource Retraction Watch. Then I’ll present some concrete case studies on how traditional peer reviewed commercial publishing fails in all the same way that supposedly predatory publishing fails ..."


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) »

Tags: oa.comment oa.quality oa.credibility oa.predatory oa.fees oa.publishers oa.business_models oa.peer_review oa.retractions oa.retraction_watch oa.journals

Date tagged:

04/01/2015, 10:39

Date published:

04/01/2015, 06:39