Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Unearthing open access resource evaluation

521 views

Published on

Explores types of unethical publishing tactics among false publishers claiming to be Open Access Scholarly Publishers. Presented at "Discovery to Delivery 5: Better Together", in Indianapolis, on April 25, 2014.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Unearthing open access resource evaluation

  1. 1. Unearthing Open Access Resource Evaluation: Joining Together to Avoid Inadequate Peer Review Process and Predatory Publishing Nina Collins McMillen Library, Indiana Tech Discovery to Delivery 5: Better Together April 25, 2014
  2. 2. Project Beginnings  Liaison to PhD program, Global Leadership  Our students need instruction on evaluating journals  Acceptance rate  Impact factor and other bibliometrics  Editorial board and Institutional affiliation  Quality of papers submitted  Scope of Journal  Spam email solicitations for manuscripts  “Call for paper”  Root issue: Need to evaluate new Open Access publications
  3. 3. Traditional Scholarly Publishing  Traditional Model  Scholar produces a scientific manuscript, then sends it to the editor of a scholarly journal  Editor reviews the manuscript, then sends it to peer reviewers  Peer reviewers review the manuscript and return the manuscript to the editor with comments, suggestions, and recommendations  The editor makes a final decision concerning acceptance, acceptance with modification, or rejection  Author gives all copyright permissions to the publisher, who assumes all costs in publication
  4. 4. Traditional Scholarly Publishing  Editors of journals play a gatekeeping role  Journals require subscriptions for access  Having signed away copyright, creators of the scholarly works must pay for access  Who pays for access:  Libraries  Institution pays salary of researchers  Grant funded research?
  5. 5. Open Access Scholarly Publishing “By Open Access, we mean the free, immediate, availability on the public Internet of those works which scholars give to the world without expectation of payment – permitting any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full text of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software or use them for any other lawful purpose.” Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC),(2013)
  6. 6. Green Open Access  Creators are allowed to place a preprint copy of the manuscript on an institutional repository  Resources on the institutional repository are freely available to all  Costs of maintaining the repository are funded by the institution  Only works when the institution has a repository, and encourages faculty to archive their scholarly content on the repository  Most traditional publishers support Green OA  As the Interlibrary Loan librarian, I LOVE Green OA. I often check to see if a resource is available in a repository before requesting ILL
  7. 7. Gold OA  Often called the “Author pays” model, used by online journals  The costs of publication are usually funded by the authors, in the form of “author fees”, or “article processing fees”  Author fees vary significantly based on the discipline and the publisher  Many OA publishers have policies for waiving the author fees for scholars in developing nations, or who cannot afford the fee  The fee is sometimes paid by the research sponsor (Institution or funding agency)
  8. 8. Benefits of OA  No barrier to access  Taxpayers can access the research they helped fund  Permission to reuse, if giving credit to original creator  Increases visibility and usage of scholarly works  Increases access to scientific work for developing nations  Increases citations of scholarly works (Gargouri, 2010) Suber (2012)
  9. 9. Criticisms of OA  How much value is added by publishers (editors, copy-editors, and illustrators)?  What are the real costs involved in Open Access publishing?  Green, Gold, Delayed, Hybrid  Business Models  Quality  Discoverability of materials in Institutional Repositories Salo (2007)  Predatory Publishers Crawford (2011)
  10. 10. Predatory Publishers  Use the author-pays model, Gold Open Access  Are not limited to Open Access publications. Can include conferences, or traditional publishing business models  Remind us that as scholars, evaluation of resources cannot be underestimated; we must be diligent  Engage in Inadequate peer-review processes.  Look like legitimate publishers Beall (2013)
  11. 11. Predatory Publishing Unethical Practices  Deception  Negligence or non-adherence to standards  Lack of transparency Beall (2013)
  12. 12. Unethical Practices: Deception  The websites look like legitimate publishers (ex.)  The journal/publisher name mimics an established journal/publisher (ex.)  Journal name does not reflect geographic location (ex.)  Not indexed by reputable indexing and abstracting services, but claim to be  Coverage is misrepresented in abstracting & indexing services  List databases as abstracting/indexing services that are not true abstracting/indexing services (ex.)  Make up citation metrics  List people on the editorial board who have not agreed to serve OR refuse to provide names of editorial board  Lie about location of publisher headquarters (ex. Avens Publishing Group) Beall (2013)
  13. 13. Unethical Practices: Negligence or Non-adherence to Standards  Inadequate peer-review  A publisher may list the same editor for all its journals  A journal has very broad coverage or subject matter  Author side fee  Spelling or Grammar errors (ex.)  Fail to provide contact information for the journal or editors  Use email to solicit manuscripts (spam)  Fleet Startup (ex.)  May not use ISSN or DOIs  Licensing problems (ex.)  Use Yahoo! Or Gmail addresses  Poor website search functionality (ex.)  Dead Links (ex.) Beall (2013)
  14. 14. Unethical Practices: Lack of transparency  Claim Peer review, when they do not practice adequate peer review  Little or no information about the peer review process  Fail to clearly state author side fees  Fail to list editorial board or contact information for editorial board  The only contact information for the editor is an online form, or an email through the website Beall (2013)
  15. 15. Predatory Publishing Quick Check  Has the publisher started dozens of new Open Access titles all at once?  Do the published titles have very few papers (if any)?  Does the publisher send e-mails to myriad researchers asking for manuscript submissions or to serve on editorial boards?  Does the publisher fail to disclose the names of editorial board members or editors?  Is the publisher’s address NOT verifiable?  Is there very little evidence of peer review? Crawford (2011)
  16. 16. Peer Review Sting  Predatory Publishers often exercise poor peer-review practices.  Turn around time is very fast (a week or two).  In a recent sting operation, a fake scientific paper, written by a fake scientist, working at a fake university, was submitted to 304 Open Access journals.  It was accepted by 54% of the Open Access publications.  Many of the publishers that accepted the paper were listed on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers. Bohannon, J. (2013)
  17. 17. Peer Review Fail  In 2005, graduate students in the PDOS research group at MIT CSAIL built an automatic scientific paper generator, called SCIgen, Stribling et al (2005).  Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble built an automatic SCIgen detector, to unmask SCIgen generated papers, Labbe (2013).  Recently, more than 120 SCIgen created scientific papers are being withdrawn from publishers, including Springer and IEEE, Norden (2014).
  18. 18. Journal Evaluation in Perspective  Peer-review is an integral part of scientific practice. As scholars, we must be diligent in our critiques of scientific research.  Continued evaluation on the part of scholars marks the distinction between science and pseudo-science.  Individuals have lost their jobs for publishing in predatory journals, or for serving on editorial boards of predatory journals. Beall, J. (2014).  One’s professional reputation can make or break their career.
  19. 19. Implications for Librarians  Collection Development  Discovery Layer (I used the PPET Project to assess new Open Access journals before adding them in the knowledge base in WMS)  Interlibrary Loan  Liaison Roles
  20. 20. PPET Project Predatory Publishing Evaluation Tool  Created a checklist tool for emerging scholars to help them evaluate online journals  PPET Project  Partial online checklist tool  Our Ph.D. Students are distance students  We could tack on an optional user survey
  21. 21. References Beall, J. (2014, February 20). Iceland professor in hot water for publishing in predatory journals. Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open access publications. Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/20/iceland-professor-in-hot-water-for-publishing-in-predatory-journals/ Beall, J. (2014, January 24). University of Pristina Rector under fire for publishing in predatory journals. Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open access publications. Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/24/university-of-pristina-rector-under-fire-for-publishing-in-predatory-journals/ Beall, J. (2013). Unethical Practices in Scholarly, Open-Access Publishing. Journal of Information Ethics, 22(1), 11- 20. doi: 10.3172/JIE.22.1.11 Bohannon, J. (2013, October 4). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6). Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full Crawford, W. (2011). ALA Editions Special Reports : Open Access : What You Need to Know Now. Chicago, IL, USA: American Library Association Editions Gargouri, Y., et al. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, Open Access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS One, 5(10). Labbé, C. (2013). SCIgen Detection. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://scigendetection.imag.fr/main.php Noorden, R. V. (2014, February 24). Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature News. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763 Salo, D. (2008). “Innkeeper at the roach motel.” Library Trends: 57(2). SPARC, (2013). Why Open Access? Retrieved from http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/open-access/why-oa Straub, D., & Anderson, C. (2010). Journal Quality and citations: common metrics and considerations about their use. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), iii-xii. Stribling, J., Krohn, J., & Aguayo, D. (2005). SCIgen - An Automatic CS Paper Generator. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ Suber, P. (2012). MIT Press Essential Knowledge : Open Access. Cambridge, MA, USA MIT Press
  22. 22. For More Information:  Beall’s 2014 List of Predatory Publishers  PPET Project  Contact me Nina Collins 260.422.5561 x 2155 nkcollins@indianatech.edu Twitter: @CollinsnNina Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/collinsnina www.collinsn.com Postscript: Thanks to all who provided great feedback today! Due to good feedback, the PPET Project will Continue to evolve, beginning with the changing of the name to simply, the PET Project. Thanks again!

×