tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post5349919362360450143..comments2017-09-18T13:10:02.555+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Emerald Group Publishing tests ZEN, increases prices: what does it mean?Richard Poynderhttps://plus.google.com/109680188903316748168noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-48586889340044432112015-07-24T09:43:45.882+00:002015-07-24T09:43:45.882+00:00Hi Zen, If you are asking me to cite a study that...Hi Zen,<br /><br />If you are asking me to cite a study that concludes “the quality of papers has fallen” I cannot do that. What I can do is tell you what I had in mind when I wrote that: <br /><br />I had in mind the so-called <a href="http://footnote1.com/why-biomedical-research-has-a-reproducibility-problem/" rel="nofollow">“reproducibility problem”</a>, and I had in mind <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct" rel="nofollow">scientific misconduct</a> — including things like <a href="http://www.boston.com/whitecoatnotes/2012/09/05/harvard-professor-who-resigned-fabricated-manipulated-data-says/UvCmT8yCcmydpDoEkIRhGP/story.html" rel="nofollow">data fabrication</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct#Photo_manipulation" rel="nofollow">photo manipulation</a> and the peddling of <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2015/03/26/biomed-central-retracting-43-papers-for-fake-peer-review/" rel="nofollow">fake peer reviews</a>. <br /><br />I also had in mind the rise and rise of so-called predatory journals, many of whom either do not appear to have papers peer reviewed at all, or encourage reviewers to do it in a totally inadequate way. <br /><br />All the above things appear to be on the rise right now, and all are causing the quality of papers to fall. And it seems to me that most of these phenomena are at least partly a consequence of the pressure on researchers to publish, which is I believe a relatively new phenomenon (certainly historically speaking).<br /><br />I can also say that I have read a great many papers that are clearly (even to me as a layperson) of very poor quality, and I cannot believe that anyone would have gone to the effort of producing them if it were not because of the growing demands on researchers to publish.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-66018785911151368492015-07-23T15:34:59.395+00:002015-07-23T15:34:59.395+00:00&quot;While we have seen a few experiments in alte...&quot;While we have seen a few experiments in alternative peer review practices, and new ways of trying to measure the quality and impact of research, the outdated journal model continues to dominate, <b>the quality of papers has fallen</b>, retractions have increased, and sharing research remains a slow and inefficient process.&quot;<br /><br />Citation requested for bolded claim.Zen Faulkeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811309183398223358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-57139058660126759112015-07-22T13:27:05.953+00:002015-07-22T13:27:05.953+00:00Spinning Wheels Good analysis. Yes, the name of t...<b>Spinning Wheels</b><br /><br />Good analysis. Yes, the name of the game for journal publishers is to preserve (and, where possible increase) current revenue streams and profit margins for as long as possible, whether via subscriptions or Fools-Gold or both. And yes, it is an oligopoly. And yes, Emerald is trying some smaller-player manoeuvres here, to preserve or increase its market share, within the oligopoly, with Green perks and Fools-Gold price hikes. <br /><br />But mandated Green OA self-archiving can circumnavigate all of this (despite Green OA embargoes) and provide OA just the same. And once the institutions, funders and researchers of the planet come to their senses, mandatory Green OA will prevail, journal subscriptions will become cancellable; Fools-Gold will become unnecessary; and affordable, scaleable, sustainable Fair-Gold will follow. <br /><br />I make no predictions on timing because — as two decades of sleep-walking have amply shown — there’s no second-guessing the human capacity for fog or folly.Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-77160384774524326062015-07-22T13:06:41.721+00:002015-07-22T13:06:41.721+00:00I have had a comment emailed to me saying that it ...I have had a comment emailed to me saying that it is normal in the for-profit business world to charge what the market will bear, rather than simply covering one’s cost. Of course, that is true. The problem with the scholarly journal market, however, is that it does not work as a <a href="http://www.infotoday.com/it/dec02/poynder.htm" rel="nofollow"> “true market”</a>. Certainly there do not appear to be effective market forces at work to impose price restraint, particularly when funders are willing to pay publishers&#39; asking price.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.com
https://poynder.blogspot.com/feeds/5349919362360450143/comments/default
poynder.blogspot.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-39
12388
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:LBRPV2H4F7CXY3L2JSJRU3P6ATZK7XL5
<urn:uuid:0cd54972-025b-4cf6-8889-8ec8ec8a462d>
2017-09-24T23:07:08Z
216.58.217.97
application/atom+xml
sha1:MNBQISTSQC2QL2GTVXNKGUXSZJ6S26MX
<urn:uuid:e7731fbf-02b6-4331-821f-eb1d090aaca5>
https://poynder.blogspot.com/feeds/5349919362360450143/comments/default
response
<urn:uuid:4554e50a-6c0f-47e5-a1bc-ee9d80ae62cb>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-182-87-105.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-39
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf