General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe dark side of open access journals?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/09/the-dark-side-of-open-access-journals/Nature has also weighed in on problematic journals, again emphasizing that its a bad side of open access. I think thats the wrong angle; open access is great, this is a downside of the ease of web-based publishing, and is also a side-effect of the less than stellar transparency of accreditation of journals. There are companies that compile references to legitimate journals, and they are policing the publishing arena by refusing to index fake journals, but that isnt going to be obvious to the reader.
The NY Times article that Meyers references:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html
The scientists who were recruited to appear at a conference called Entomology-2013 thought they had been selected to make a presentation to the leading professional association of scientists who study insects.
But they found out the hard way that they were wrong. The prestigious, academically sanctioned conference they had in mind has a slightly different name: Entomology 2013 (without the hyphen). The one they had signed up for featured speakers who were recruited by e-mail, not vetted by leading academics. Those who agreed to appear were later charged a hefty fee for the privilege, and pretty much anyone who paid got a spot on the podium that could be used to pad a résumé.
I think we were duped, one of the scientists wrote in an e-mail to the Entomological Society.
Those scientists had stumbled into a parallel world of pseudo-academia, complete with prestigiously titled conferences and journals that sponsor them. Many of the journals and meetings have names that are nearly identical to those of established, well-known publications and events.
And from Nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/investigating-journals-the-dark-side-of-publishing-1.12666
The explosion in open-access publishing has fuelled the rise of questionable operators.
Spam e-mails changed the life of Jeffrey Beall. It was 2008, and Beall, an academic librarian and a researcher at the University of Colorado in Denver, started to notice an increasing flow of messages from new journals soliciting him to submit articles or join their editorial boards. I immediately became fascinated because most of the e-mails contained numerous grammatical errors, Beall says. He started browsing the journals' websites, and was soon convinced that many of the journals and their publishers were not quite what they claimed. The names often sounded grand adjectives such as 'world', 'global' and 'international' were common but some sites looked amateurish or gave little information about the organization behind them.
Since then, Beall has become a relentless watchdog for what he describes as potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers, listing and scrutinizing them on his blog, Scholarly Open Access. Open-access publishers often collect fees from authors to pay for peer review, editing and website maintenance. Beall asserts that the goal of predatory open-access publishers is to exploit this model by charging the fee without providing all the expected publishing services. These publishers, Beall says, typically display an intention to deceive authors and readers, and a lack of transparency in their operations and processes.
Beall says that he regularly receives e-mails from researchers unhappy about their experiences with some open-access journals. Some say that they thought their papers had been poorly peer reviewed or not peer reviewed at all, or that they found themselves listed as members of editorial boards they had not agreed to serve on. Others feel they were not informed clearly, when submitting papers to publishers, that publication would entail a fee only to face an invoice after the paper had been accepted. According to Beall, whose list now includes more than 300 publishers, collectively issuing thousands of journals, the problem is getting worse. 2012 was basically the year of the predatory publisher; that was when they really exploded, says Beall. He estimates that such outfits publish 510% of all open-access articles.
And finally, Beall's list. If you're wondering whether the journal you're referencing, or using as a source, is legit, check here. If the journal, or publisher is on Beall's List, there's a good chance that it isn't.
http://scholarlyoa.com/
Sid
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)If anybody tried to charge me money for publishing in a peer-reviewed academic journal, or getting a featured speaker session at a major conference, I'd just laugh at them. It's simply not done. I have to question how anybody who falls for such things has been professionalized in graduate school. By the time you're ripe for such scams, you should sure enough know better.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)to forward an agenda.
Spend $600 to get your "paper" published in an allegedly peer-reviewed Open Access journal.
Boom. Instant credibility - at least with those who don't look too deeply at your research or the journal.
http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/13/publishing-pseudo-science/
Sid
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)It's just odd that the story itself seems to rely on legitimate researchers surprised by the scam.
sorcrow
(420 posts)Hate to break it to you but most peer reviewed journals do charge authors for publishing with extra charges for illustrations and tables. It's something of a racket, but it's the way things work. Check out any of the Elsevier journals, or independent journals such as The Biophysical Journal or PNAS. Go to their websites and read the instructions for authors. When you're in a publish-or-perish profession, you're stuck. Of course most research funding is set up so publishing costs are covered.
Regards,
Crow
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I've never had to pay. Must be a science thing. Then again, I don't publish many visuals.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)with the list of who I don't want to rely on..however I'm wondering if there is a list of reputable journals I could access?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I expected the biggest fraud is on uninformed readers.
petronius
(26,602 posts)to conferences I've never heard of, I've vaguely wondered what the scam was...
hunter
(38,321 posts)Everything gets turned into a "product" that is bought and sold.
Buying and selling "credibility" is the business, not science, even for such prestigious journals as Nature.
All of academia is slippery with the bullshit of a market economy.