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

Comment on Scholarly Indexes are Unwittingly “Legitimizing” Corrupt Publishers by Robin Hood

0
0

Mr Khan, Shawn was actually criticising EBSCO, but seems your poor understanding of the English language has prevented you from understanding the former part of his comment. Rather than spewing out what Wikipedia feeds you, you need to spend more time sending e-mails to people in top places and challenging the status quo. It’s exactly because there are exceptions to the rule that there should be boycotts and severe penalties. Let’s remember what rank Elsevier has in the world in terms of science journal publishing. Just in case you don’t know. No. 1. And let’s remember who the parent company of Elsevier is: Reed-Elsevier. Ans let’s also remember that there was a strong campaign against Elsevier last year that turned into a boycott for its predatory pricing policies. This is because we should demand nothing less than perfection from the No. 1. Have you seen EBSCO pull fraudulent journals or journals where scientific quality, fake editors, or a host of other problems exist? Of course not. Same for Elsevier. Same for Thomson Reuters. It is for this reason that DOAJ has panicked and established external quality control teams to monitor who is included. However, what is DOAJ doing about those predators that are already included? They should throw them out. Because, as I indicated above, profits come first and pseudo-quality second. The predation in OA is relevant to Elsevier because Elsevier also publishes OA journals, but its operations, like those of Springer, are out of India, so Elsevier and Springer are monitoring this blog carefully because the association of OA predators with India could tarnish their reputation as they seek greater profits for their shareholders while paying lower costs for labor. Not unlike Walmart. So try to be more neutral in your blind love towards Elsevier. CABI is a non-profit organization with a 20 million US$ profit margin! Don’t be fooled by what their web-sites and marketing managers spew at you: that’s all PR meant to be a smoke screen. How much fraud, abuse, irregularities and other serious problems in Elsevier journals are reported to the public, either by Elsevier or by the scientific public? Almost nothing. Because the masses have been silenced. So, in the same way in which Jeff’s blog represents a vocal and powerful complaint against the OA predators, they share the publishing stage with Elsevier, EBSCO, and the rest and thus those companies deserve equally critical scrutiny. Faults, errors, or frauds that are detected should be publically disclosed, without fear of retribution. As equally as we are critical of the OA publishers, we should also be balanced in our criticisms of the established publishers and how they may have reached such positions of power. There are no coincidences or destiny, only pre-determined choices. If enough voices demand change in EBSCO, Elsevier and others, as we are doing here for OA journals, then maybe we could see change and the fraudsters might start to fear the voice of the masses. As for WJST, that fraudulent publisher is still there: http://worldjournalofscience.com/index.php/wjst/, alive and kicking. Remember, fraud is the active will to deceive someone, and is a criminal activity in most countries, so, I don’t see why the tender-hearted on this blog seem to object to the word criminal.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10802

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images