RE: Merck published fake journal

["Ian Russell" <ian.russell@cytherean.co.uk>]

Matt Cockerill is not on lib-license, but has given permission to 
post on the following comment:

Ian,

I think you really answer your own question, in terms of how/why 
open access journals will strive to maintain and improve quality.

"What often seems to be ignored is that the journals market is 
fiercely competitive - the competition is for good papers from 
good authors who will improve the standard of the journal and 
that is why wise journals will resist the temptation to accept 
low quality work irrespective of their business model"

OA journals need to attract authors, and authors (even more than 
subscribers) are attracted by Impact Factors and other measures 
of prestige. When a journal gets a good impact factor, BioMed 
Central's experience is that the number of manuscript submissions 
can triple almost overnight. What stronger motivation could there 
be for ensuring quality standards in order to develop and retain 
the prestige necessary to attract authors?

Matthew Cockerill, Ph.D.
Managing Director
BioMed Central

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Ian Russell
Sent: 15 May 2009 07:19
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Merck published fake journal

I won't comment on the details of what has happened in the Merck 
/Elsevier case.  It does seem that a line was crossed, which is 
unfortunate to say the least, but that some of the subsequent 
comments I've read are over the top...

However, the point I'd like to make is about quality and business 
models.

It is a fact that subscription journals vary widely in quality. I 
am sure that the same will be true for open access journals. I 
really can't see much of a difference.  A subscription journal 
might be tempted to accept lower quality material if it is 
struggling to fill its pages just as an author-pays journal may 
be tempted to accept a paper to generate income. The result in 
both cases is the same; a lower quality publication.

Impact factors etc give an indication of 'quality' but as Anthony 
says below the academics know the quality of the journals they 
interact with.

What often seems to be ignored is that the journals market is 
fiercely competitive - the competition is for good papers from 
good authors who will improve the standard of the journal and 
that is why wise journals will resist the temptation to accept 
low quality work irrespective of their business model.

It is of course true that subscribers are more likely to purchase 
higher quality journals and this provides a strong incentive for 
journals to strive to improve their quality.  Perhaps one of the 
open access publishers could provide a similar motivation for 
improving the quality of their journals?

Ian Russell, ALPSP

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of
anthony.watkinson@btinternet.com
Sent: 14 May 2009 02:43
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Merck published fake journal

David and all:

Alas there are temptations involved in all business models. It
was my understanding that Elsevier immediately condemned the
"fake journal" published some time ago. Anyone who works in
publishing or who has once worked in publishing must be aware of
the pressures that will have led to this improper publication and
also that such a publication can be done without proper
management approval - which is what Elsevier claim.

My complaint about irony was the suggestion that that such
practices may be common in Elsevier.

There must be a temptation to those who publish large numbers of
new OA author paid journals with very few submissions to (let us
say) lower standards. I have not checked out these journals and
do not know whether this is in fact going on, but if I was
running a company which was going down the tubes I would be
tempted.

I am not making covert attacks on BMC, or PLOS or Hindawi or
publishers like that, and I certainly will not provide any names,
but the academic communities know them.

Anthony Watkinson