Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Scholarly Open Access
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10802

Comment on Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers by Marc Couture

0
0

I think what you have done is quite relevant and useful. But, as some have suggested, there is something a little bit too raw in your list of 40+ criteria, some of them sufficient by themselves to disqualify a journal altogether (“Claim to have a peer review but does not”) while others would apply also to serious journals (and I don’t mean the likes of Nature, but small journals with limited resources).

This is not a problem if the list is envisioned, like some have suggested, as a guide to help people judge if a journal is worth reading, or using as a publishing venue. Everyone then knows what to look for, and can make his or her decision as to the relative importance of each criterion.

But it is a problem when these criteria are used to create a prominently displayed list of “predatory” publishers, which earn that strong qualification as a result of a highly subjective process involving such disparate criteria. At least, it would be more appropriate to use a term like “dubious”, because it is true that a “yes” to any, of a few of these criteria raises suspicion.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10802

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images