Notes: Perish Even If You Publish

I attended an Office of Scholarly Communication talk today centred around the hot potato of ‘predatory’ publishers. Hosted by the excellent Research Skills co-ordinator, Claire Sewell, she very quickly established that this type of publishing practice can often include:

  • An exploitative process
  • Direct contact via phishing e-mails
  • Charges for services without delivery
  • No peer review or editorial process included in costs
  • Established vanity publishing practices
  • Issues over immoral copyright practices
  • The researcher signing away their intellectual property rights
  • Withdrawal fees and/or hidden fees

To top things off, the end result of publishing via these services can have a negative impact due to the art of promoting and being published alongside bad research.

This graph, sourced from Jeffrey Beall’s findings, is a good indication as to the growing extent of the problem. Beall is a name that you’ll find inextricably linked to this topic – click here to see why.

academic-publishers-titles-identified-as-predatorial-2011-2016-210116-large

Claire highlighted a few of the positive impacts that these types of publisher can have. These include:

  • An end product that is published and citeable
  • A service to countries where choice is not always an option

Whether these pros makes up for the cons of going through an exploitative process is a hard-sell.

On a personal level, I can see a situation where it once worked. Many moons ago, I was published in a vanity publication which required me to purchase a copy. The end product was a poetry anthology and having agreed and purchased the hard copy I was able to see my work alongside fellow poets. Having it on my bookshelf, it became a bit of a talking point amongst my peers. Pure vanity, I know, but at such a young age it provided me with a welcome boost to my confidence levels.

However, my example was a throwaway project. The kind of research that these operations are targeting are both solo and joint projects; those that require vast sums of investment and that take years to complete. Driving a money-making scheme by exploiting the grey areas of researcher requirements in these circumstances is completely unacceptable. A great example of this is the constant misuse of the Gold Open Access model – an honest concept with one too many holes.

thinkchecksubmit

So, some top tips for avoiding the dark art of ‘predatory’ publishing are needed. First, have a look at the awesome website http://thinkchecksubmit.org then consider these things.

  • Is the publisher transparent about what services they do and don’t provide?
  • Do they broach the issue of copyright?
  • Do they offer a peer review process?
  • Are there any hidden fees?
  • Do they have an editorial board and do they list them?
  • What types of association membership do they have?
  • Does their website look professional?
  • What is the quality of their previous publications? Spelling mistakes? Correct abstract indexing?

Good luck! It’s a dog-eat-dog, fleece-the-little-man world out there. And that’s enough animal references for now.

Advertisements

One Comment Add yours

  1. Ryan C. says:

    I wasn’t able to go to that one, so thanks for writing it up!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s