[liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals & conferences
Peter Lindener
lindener.peter at gmail.com
Mon Apr 8 17:23:09 PDT 2013
Oh-dear!
Up to now, I have figured that the Internet revolution was mostly a
good thing...
The shakeup of the news paper industry at first seemed like it might help
to open up Journalism to in some way perhaps more democratic... As I read
here about potential confusion regarding the reputability of Journals...
I sense cause for serious worry.
..Most of all for small just starting out journals that have all the
intention to establish them selves as reputable. These well intending
newer publications will now find them swamped by disreputable competitors
that threaten to drag down the whole intellectual publication
infrastructure.
As for my own disposition as self educated individual, (who does not yet
have letters behind his name)...
I am truly frightened, as publication of my work in a reputable journal...
in the end is all that I might might hope for...
So the very last thing any of us would need would be for a sense of
confusion as to what journals are considered reputable in the greater
public eye...
I'm not sure what actions Stanford might help take as an institution
that clearly has a stake in the health of the academic publication
industry.... Perhaps along with other institutions forming a fairly
decisive advisory board would be good.... maybe something can be done
before the whole pier reviewed publication system begins to falter?
-- Peter L
--------
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Richard Brooks <rrb at acm.org> wrote:
> Part of the problem is the use of publications to
> drive academic "retention, tenure, promotion."
> Publications should be vetted by a set of peers
> that only allow publication of quality goods. The
> journals are supposed to be the gate-keepers and
> enforcers of quality. This means that the people trying
> to publish have an incentive to publish as much as
> they can.
>
> Having the authors pay gives the supposed gatekeepers
> an economic incentive to publish more and lower quality.
> If costs are not paid by the subscribers (who should
> in principle only pay for quality goods) then it is
> hard to find a model that is going to keep the bar
> high enough.
>
> Professional societies (IEEE, ACM, etc.)
> can probably maintain quality in this scenario.
> But that decreases the number of journals and the amount
> of available info...
>
> On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> > I'm wondering whether some global equivalent of the copyright collection
> > societies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective might not
> > work although they would need to be updated to reflect current issues
> > around CC and related licensing… Richer institutionscould pay in for
> > access to Open Access journals perhaps on a pay per usage basis and
> > given a relatively modest cost structure for OA journals this might be
> > sufficient to cover operating costs on a Robin Hood basis for poorer and
> > LDC libraries. …just a thought.
> >
> >
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:*liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu
> > [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *LISTS
> > *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:58 AM
> > *To:* liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
> > *Subject:* Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students:
> > Fake, pay-to-publish journals & conferences
> >
> >
> >
> > Indeed, this would be a problem. However, it's already a problem, which
> > is to say that poorer universities cannot afford subscriptions to EBSCO
> > and whatnot to begin with, and thus their faculty have trouble keeping
> > up with research in comparison to those at richer schools. What I'm
> > suggesting here could at least alleviate this problem, because richer
> > schools would subsidize /access/ to research.
> >
> > Moreover, I'm imagining that the cost of pay-to-publish would be far
> > lower than for-profit schemes like T&F and Elsevier, thus enabling
> > poorer school's libraries to save money and actually increase their
> > faculty's ability to do research (assuming that's their mission).
> > However, I don't have numbers on this, so I could be wrong.
> >
> > - Rob Gehl
> >
> > On 04/08/2013 11:52 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
> >
> > The problem with this is that faculty from wealthier universities
> will have much more capability to publish than faculty from less wealthy
> universities. And those who can get their work supported by those with
> money have an upper hand of getting more information out than those who do
> not have their work supported. There is already enough of this in grants
> perhaps. Maybe we could envision something like low cost subscriptions so
> that individuals or universities could pay a small fee to journals they use
> a lot. This works well on a number of political blogs.
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > ________________________________________
> >
> > From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu <mailto:
> liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu> [
> liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu <mailto:
> liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu>] on behalf of LISTS [
> lists at robertwgehl.org <mailto:lists at robertwgehl.org>]
> >
> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:45 PM
> >
> > To: liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu <mailto:
> liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students:
> Fake, pay-to-publish journals & conferences
> >
> >
> >
> > Or, potentially, university libraries could shift from buying
> >
> > subscriptions to paying for their university faculty's publication
> fees.
> >
> > If the ultimate product is an open access publication, then the issue
> >
> > isn't paying for access, but rather paying to produce the public
> good.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Rob Gehl
> >
> >
> >
> > On 04/08/2013 11:42 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
> >
> > Publishing may be dirt cheap but any systematic/formal e.g.
> academic
> >
> > publishing isn't free... So the problem is that while there is a
> necessary
> >
> > and valuable shift from commercial publishing (and outrageous
> profiteering)
> >
> > to open access online publishing there really aren't any good
> business
> >
> > models yet to cover the (much less but not totally trivial)
> costs of the new
> >
> > forms of academic publishing.
> >
> >
> >
> > If for whatever reason (and there are lots including the issues
> pointed to
> >
> > here) one doesn't want to go to a pay for play model that leaves
> >
> > advertising(???) or donations (???) or...
> >
> >
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu <mailto:
> liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu>
> >
> > [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of
> Richard
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:34 AM
> >
> > To: liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu <mailto:
> liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad
> students: Fake,
> >
> > pay-to-publish journals & conferences
> >
> >
> >
> > It's not curious. It is accurate. As the funding model moved from
> >
> > subscribers paying for access to authors paying for publication,
> the
> >
> > financial incentives changed as well. The loosening of standards
> is an
> >
> > obvious consequence of this decision.
> >
> >
> >
> > The question of how best to publish quality academic information
> is
> >
> > non-trivial. Like the question of where to get quality current
> affairs
> >
> > information. It will take a while for things to adjust to the
> ability of the
> >
> > Internet to make publishing dirt-cheap.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 04/08/2013 12:19 PM, James Losey wrote:
> >
> > I think it's curious how this article frames the journals as
> "open
> >
> > access" rather than a more appropriate "pay to play"
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Yosem Companys <
> companys at stanford.edu <mailto:companys at stanford.edu>
> >
> > <mailto:companys at stanford.edu> <mailto:companys at stanford.edu>>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Nathaniel Poor <natpoor at gmail.com <mailto:
> natpoor at gmail.com>
> >
> > <mailto:natpoor at gmail.com> <mailto:natpoor at gmail.com>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-w
> >
> > orld-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...."
> >
> >
> >
> > This has been a problem for a while, but now it's big
> enough to be a
> >
> > newspaper story.
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> >
> > Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D.
> >
> > http://natpoor.blogspot.com/
> >
> > https://sites.google.com/site/natpoor/
> >
> > --
> >
> > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or
> change password
> >
> > by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu <mailto:
> companys at stanford.edu>
> >
> > <mailto:companys at stanford.edu> <mailto:
> companys at stanford.edu> or changing your settings at
> >
> >
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change
> password by
> >
> > emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu <mailto:
> companys at stanford.edu> or changing your settings
> >
> > at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ===================
> >
> > R. R. Brooks
> >
> >
> >
> > Associate Professor
> >
> > Holcombe Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
> Clemson
> >
> > University
> >
> >
> >
> > 313-C Riggs Hall
> >
> > PO Box 340915
> >
> > Clemson, SC 29634-0915
> >
> > USA
> >
> >
> >
> > Tel. 864-656-0920
> >
> > Fax. 864-656-5910
> >
> > email: rrb at acm.org <mailto:rrb at acm.org>
> >
> > web: http://www.clemson.edu/~rrb
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change
> password by
> >
> > emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu <mailto:
> companys at stanford.edu> or changing your settings at
> >
> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change
> password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu <mailto:
> companys at stanford.edu> or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password
> by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu <mailto:
> companys at stanford.edu> or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password
> by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu <mailto:
> companys at stanford.edu> or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >
>
>
> --
> ===================
> R. R. Brooks
>
> Associate Professor
> Holcombe Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
> Clemson University
>
> 313-C Riggs Hall
> PO Box 340915
> Clemson, SC 29634-0915
> USA
>
> Tel. 864-656-0920
> Fax. 864-656-5910
> email: rrb at acm.org
> web: http://www.clemson.edu/~rrb
>
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130408/1e947e93/attachment.html>
More information about the liberationtech
mailing list