RE: Covert Article Republishing Discovered in Emerald/MCB UP 1989-2003

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

Dear Phil,

It would be equally constructive and honorable if Emerald were to state
simply and directly that it intended to refund the money specifically paid
twice for the articles concerned.  It has not yet even said that.

As for the authors, I was the author of one paper in Online Information
Review. I considered that a respectable journal, and it does not seem to
have been involved in any reprinting. Had I known it was published by a
publisher engaged in such practices, I would not have published it there.
That one of my articles was published in a journal from such a publisher
will not help my career as much as anticipated.

Aslib, in a move that caused some controversy at the time, transferred its
publications (Journal of Documentation and Aslib Proceedings) to Emerald.  
I cannot imagine that they would have done so if they had known the
publisher's practices.  I can certainly say that I was in fact considering
Aslib Proceedings for a paper that I am currently finishing--I shall not
send it there. Once bitten is bad enough.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Phil Davis
Sent: Fri 11/12/2004 6:08 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Covert Article Republishing Discovered in Emerald/MCB UP 1989-2003
 
While I understand Anthony's point (that the editor must have known what
was going into his/her journal), I have documented nearly 70 journals that
were involved in publishing duplicate material.  While there may be, as
Anthony puts it, "less than competent" editors, the fact that I have
documented so many from the same publisher seems to suggest that this is
not about individual competence.

Over the last few months, I sent Emerald management scores of direct
questions asking about the process of editorial control, who was involved,
and for how long.  None of those email messages were answered.  Rather
than speculate, it would be easier for Emerald to explain what happened in
the past and how they changed their structure to prevent this from
happening again.  This would be the most constructive outcome from this
report.

--Phil Davis