RE: Open Access means sloppy publications?

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

Dear Peter,

By "rather common" I did not mean universal, and I correct my wording to:
"A not uncommon practice among low quality titles..."

I suggest that perhaps readers (who normally try to read good articles)
and certainly editors of good journals, might try the following exercise:

Examine some of the journals in the lowest fifth or so of the ISI impact
factor rankings in any field with which one is familiar, and then to
remember that there are many journals even below that in quality, as ISI
is selective.  Then look at references to articles in those journals that
are 5 or 10 years old, and see what portion have had no citations
whatsoever.  (I do not imply that ISI impact factors are a precise tool
for this, but they will show the broader differences within a particular
field.)

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Banks [mailto:pbanks@diabetes.org]
Sent: Tue 5/3/2005 8:47 AM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; David Goodman
Subject: RE: Open Access means sloppy publications?
 
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 >>>

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