[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Open Access means sloppy publications?
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: Open Access means sloppy publications?
- From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 22:02:43 EDT
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
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 firstname.lastname@example.org -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com on behalf of Sally Morris (ALPSP) Sent: Sun 5/1/2005 8:55 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org 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 Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers E-mail: email@example.com ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Funk" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Open Access and For-Pay Access (to the same IR materials) > Open Access means sloppy publications? > > "The impact factors of nearly 200 open-access journals are similar to > those of traditional journals in the same fields, according to a recent > Thomson ISI report. The 58 open-access medical journals that receive > impact factors fell, on average, at the 40th percentile of all medical > journals, with all but 11 ranking higher than the 10th percentile. For > life sciences journals, the 37 open-access journals were ranked, on > average, at the 39th percentile." > > http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040427/05/ > http://www.isinet.com/media/presentrep/acropdf/impact-oa-journals.pdf > > Open Access is treasonous? > Does the Attorney General know this? > > Mark Funk > Head, Collection Development > Weill Cornell Medical Library > 1300 York Avenue > New York, NY 10021 > firstname.lastname@example.org