[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Open Access means sloppy publications?
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
- Subject: RE: Open Access means sloppy publications?
- From: "Peter Banks" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:53:34 EDT
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
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: firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Sally Morris (ALPSP) Sent: Sun 5/1/2005 8:55 PM To: email@example.com 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: firstname.lastname@example.org ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org