Re: Hoax Article Accepted by OA Bentham Journal

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

OA journals have no monopoly on low peer-review standards: There 
are plenty of low-quality and even junk subscription journals (as 
we have had occasion to note recently, with El Naschie's "Chaos, 
Solitons, Fractals" journal and of course the recent 
Pharmamercial Scams...

The problem is not with peer review itself, but the rigor with 
which it is practised. (Any resemblance to the NRA slogans on 
guns is unintended!) And the temptation to make a buck by cutting 
corners is there with OA and non-OA journals alike...

Stevan Harnad

On 15-Jun-09, at 6:34 PM, Chen, Xiaotian wrote:

> This story should be more of an OA problem than a peer-review
> problem.
>
> According to the original LJ story, the journal "claims to
> enforce peer-review."
>
> The model of author paying for OA publication may have
> contributed to this, while common sense tells us that traditional
> model (customers pay) may work better for quality control.
>
> Xiaotian Chen
> Bradley U Library
> Peoria, Illinois
> http://hilltop.bradley.edu/~chen/index.html