RE: Merck published fake journal

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

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