Comments on: Peer review sting of open access journals http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:11:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: DH http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-1825131 Wed, 04 Dec 2013 19:00:38 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=21907#comment-1825131 Are any of you at institutions who have adopted an Open-access publishing policy? As the editor of a journal dependent on revenue from Project Muse hits, I have objected to ours (in formation) and insisted that faculty have the option of declining to post their research, even after a publisher’s embargo. I’d love to have input from other historians.

]]>
By: LM http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-1719767 Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:56:51 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=21907#comment-1719767 This is a late comment, but I think it’s an important note: “faculty should not support pay-to-publish journals, but reputable O/A journals should get our support and cooperation.” Unfortunately, excluding pay-to-publish (aka “Gold OA”) will exclude useful and reputable journals, like PLOS ONE.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-1701177 Wed, 09 Oct 2013 02:49:38 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=21907#comment-1701177 HA-ha. That’s one hella peer reviewer, requiring the defiance of the laws of space and time.

]]>
By: Feminist Avatar http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-1700977 Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:53:20 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=21907#comment-1700977 I particularly enjoy that at least one of the editorial board for that ‘Scottish journal’ has been dead for over 100 years!

]]>
By: loumac http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-1700647 Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:55:50 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=21907#comment-1700647 I occupy a relatively obscure corner of the humanities, and have received quite a few solicitations from predatory journals. Here’s one that contacted me recently (I’m our department’s GPC) asking me to forward a call for papers to our grad students.

http://scottishjournal.co.uk/Default.aspx

It’s already on Beall’s excellent list that NotoriousPhD mentioned. He’s really on top of things, and I tell our grads to bookmark his list and refer to it every time they get an e-mail invitation to publish that sounds too good to be true.

There are also vanity conferences like the Oxford Round Table, a private company not affiliated with the university but that manages to flatter attendees into paying about $3,000 to attend. They send out mass invitations. People do go and have a lovely time, but it’s not the academic honour that the company tries to make it seem. I think they were sued a few years ago for hiding their lack of connection to the university, and most US state universities will now refuse to cover travel costs to it.

]]>
By: smartin http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-1696193 Sun, 06 Oct 2013 17:07:47 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=21907#comment-1696193 Two comments on the Science sting:
First, we recently published a reviewed paper on the break-up of icebergs in the Ross Sea in the flagship Journal of Geophysical Research, a publication of the non-profit American Geophysical Union. The page charges were $3,000 with copyright assignment, and $6,000 without. We paid the $3,000 from federal contract funds, which was really $4,500 including university overhead. Through this overhead, we also contributed to the University Library purchase of a hardcopy and digital subscription of the journal.

Second, the submission by Science of ~500 copies of the same paper to different journals must have put an large workload on a relatively small group of reviewers. For example, for our Ross Sea paper, I doubt that there were more than 30 possible reviewers. The reviewers of the Science sting paper must have moaned at its 37th appearance on their desktop.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-1696170 Sun, 06 Oct 2013 16:59:38 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=21907#comment-1696170 Kathleen & all–thanks for your comments & experiences with either O/A or pay-to-publish journals.

I think Kathleen has the answer to the problem: faculty should not support pay-to-publish journals, but reputable O/A journals should get our support and cooperation. Furthermore, junior faculty should be strongly discouraged in no uncertain terms from publishing in the scammy journals. This is very important.

]]>
By: Kathleen http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-1696157 Sun, 06 Oct 2013 16:52:26 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=21907#comment-1696157 There was a weird moment in a department meeting a few years ago where the department chair said we were going to have to figure out a funding model for open access journals — she was addressing the concerns of a faculty member who had sent a piece to one of these journals, had it accepted, and then gotten the $800 bill for actually getting it published.

I think people are more savvy now, but as an untenured faculty member at the time I didn’t know quite how to say the obvious, ie, “we don’t need to figure anything out, except that that is a scam”. Instead I said there were lots of reputable open access journals that didn’t have those fee structures in place, so perhaps it was not really an “open access” issue (dot dot dot). Interestingly no one else said anything at all, which could have been embarrassed silence or genuine perplexity. I still don’t know, though I do know the whole issue went quietly away and was never brought up again so I guess they figured it out for themselves.

Solicitations come across *all the time* for my discipline (anthropology), mostly from journals based in South Asia — I have also, once, been solicited to act as a reviewer for one such journal. It felt as if they were trying to go through the motions of peer review, but in a more or less random way: I was asked to review a paper about something, I don’t quite remember what, in rural Bangladesh (very very far outside my purview). Of course I declined.

]]>
By: Ruth http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-1694860 Sun, 06 Oct 2013 00:35:21 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=21907#comment-1694860 Our university library offers subsidies for faculty who publish in OA journals that require a fee. I have no idea what kind of quality control they do. I don’t know of such journals in my field but I am sure I will be finding out.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2013/10/04/peer-review-sting-of-open-access-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-1694063 Sat, 05 Oct 2013 13:27:32 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=21907#comment-1694063 Hi everyone–thanks for weighing in on this. I am at a conference now and will be busy all day long, but please carry on the conversation.

I didn’t mean to imply that OA = pay-for-publish. I can see that the Science article seems to confuse that issue. However, it seems like there is a strong connection between the two. It’s unfortunate, esp. for apparently legit outlets like PLOS-one, etc.

]]>