RE: Open Access means sloppy publications?

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

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

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Funk" <mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
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
> mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu