RE: Open Access means sloppy publications?

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

I agree with the basic contention that there both quality and shoddy peer
review systems in all types of publications.

However, I don't want anyone to think that the process you describe in the
first paragraph represents anything close to the norm in respected
journals. We, and many other publishers, have invested heavily in both
human resources and infrastructure to ensure that peer review is as
rigorous and impartial as it possibly can be. Like many top journals, we
have created and constantly update an extensive database of reviewers
whose work is itself evaluated and scored both for timeliness and quality.
It is untrue that there is a "common practice" of "an editor sending out
copies to two workers whose standards are as low as those of the
prospective author's." If that were the case, we could save ourselves a
few hundred thousand dollars and decide publication on the basis of a coin
toss.

Certainly external peer review is imperfect. But its imperfections are
generally not the type of gross negligence you describe.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
703/299-2033
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> David.Goodman@liu.edu 5/2/2005 10:02:43 PM >>>

Dear Sally,

The process you describe is meaningless unless the editor selects
appropriate reviewers and uses his judgment about their ratings.  What you
describe can become the rather common practice of an editor sending out
copies to two workers whose standards are as low as those of the
prospective author's, and following their expected recommendation to
publish. Such journals can be found in all sectors of publishing.

On the other hand, review by the editor guided by consultants, is no worse
than the standards and knowledge of the editor. Such journals with high
standards can also be found in many fields of publishing.

The use of the unqualified term "peer review" by Ulrichs, by librarians,
and by teachers, as meaning "high academic qualitity"  is not justified.
Perhaps it is retained as a standard term because it is so conveniently
flexible.

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 Sally Morris
(ALPSP)
Sent: Sun 5/1/2005 8:55 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu 
Subject: Re: Open Access means sloppy publications?
 
The findings so far of our study comparing DOAJ with other journals does
suggest that many more of them describe as 'peer review' a process that is
totally or partially in-house;  I would have thought that correct
'classical' peer review was normally conducted by external 'peers', with
the Editor-in-Chief having a final decision in case of differences of
opinion.  See http://www.alpsp.org/openacc.htm#pres

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
E-mail:  sally.morris@alpsp.org 
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org