scholarly journals The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access

Author(s):  
Jeffrey Beall

While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing countries, pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access journals. The open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous predatory publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of research misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science.

Author(s):  
Jeffrey Beall

While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing countries, pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access journals. The open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous predatory publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of research misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 214
Author(s):  
Maria José Sá ◽  
Carlos Miguel Ferreira ◽  
Ana Isabel Santos ◽  
Sandro Serpa

At a time of great dynamism among publishers of scientific publications, with the inevitability of Open Access and the ease of publishing online at low cost, it is possible to find publications with different levels of scientific respectability. In this context, the improvement of the quality of scholarly publications emerges as a critical element for publishers, authors and academic institutions, as well as for society in general. This opinion piece discusses Open Access journals with different levels of quality, focusing on the following quality-promoting measures: blacklists, author’s preparation, and institutional prevention. The analysis allows concluding that the open review will be one of the key elements in the process of clarification and promotion of the level of quality and consequent scientific respectability of each of the Journals, of the thousands currently existing, a number that is likely to increase.


2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 71-87
Author(s):  
Terry Anderson ◽  
Brigette McConkey

Open access (OA) publication has emerged, with disruptive effects, as a major outlet for scholarly publication. OA publication is usually associated with on-line distribution and provides access to scholarly publications to anyone, anywhere–regardless of their ability to pay subscription fees or their association with an educational institution. The article overviews the growth and impact of OA publication in Canada and elsewhere. The article also presents a case study of the evolution over its first nine years of the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education (IRRODL). IRRODL has become the most widely read and widely cited journal in the distance education and open learning community, yet it continues to struggle for recognition by some academics, funding, and rating organizations. In this article IRRODL’s editors document the challenges involved in leading the charge for equal support for open access journals from Canada’s research funding organizations and for review and accreditation from commercial and non-commercial review services. In its literature review section the article looks at scholarly works documenting and comparing on-line journals to ones that publish in paper only, or in which access is restricted behind the walls of licensed use.   The article also documents issues related to various innovations, including production of articles in both text and audio formats, and the challenges of incorporating more interactive media into a scholarly, peer- reviewed journal. Data is produced demonstrating the ways in which 72 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 3, 2009 influence and impact for open access journals can be measured, including hit rates and citations reference data from Google Scholar. The article concludes with a description and discussion of the advantages and challenges of using review and publication management tools such as Open Journal System in the production of open access journals.  


Author(s):  
Jeffrey Beall

Predatory publishers and journals aim to make as much money as possible from researchers using the author-pays publishing model. Though most claim to manage a proper peer review, the practice of rejecting papers for publication is contrary to their business model of maximizing revenue through author fees. Accordingly, predatory publishers frequently accept and publish articles presenting pseudo-science dressed up as legitimate research. This chapter analyzes the increasing occurrence of pseudo-science being published in predatory open-access journals.


Author(s):  
Bernard Montoneri

This chapter discusses the literature on plagiarism and aims at helping readers better understand what plagiarism is, what is at stake, and how to fight intellectual dishonesty. First, it is essential to define plagiarism and to present the historical background related to academic malpractice. Since the advent of the internet, the number of cases of plagiarism has increased exponentially. Many websites overtly encourage acts of cheating and plagiarism, offer or sell programs designed to copy, generate, and even buy assignments and academic papers. The growing number of retracted documents, not only in open access journals but also in journals owned by major publishers, is disturbing. This chapter will notably discuss the rise and thrive of “predatory” publishers, the growth of fake papers, the abuse of fake positive peer review, and the disturbing success of contract cheating. Finally, it should be noted that even though academic malpractice is damaging the reputation of the scientific community, many solutions have been proposed and implemented.


Oryx ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Céline Gossa ◽  
Martin Fisher ◽  
E. J. Milner-Gulland

AbstractConservation research has a poor record of translating science into action. Previous surveys have investigated the lack of information exchange between researchers and practitioners by focusing on the uptake of peer-reviewed literature by practitioners from developed countries. They largely ignore conservation practitioners and researchers from developing countries, for whom accessing scientific data may be more difficult. This survey investigates how practitioners and researchers from developing countries access the scientific information needed in their work, and the place of peer-reviewed literature in this process. Our results suggest that practitioners access and use peer-reviewed literature; however, both practitioners and researchers mainly obtain information from open-access journals and do not base their choice on a journal's Impact Factor. Furthermore, researchers and practitioners in developing countries appear to be looking for more direct collaboration to ensure research is relevant to their needs, as well as more open-access journals and new ways to disseminate information.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Eppelin ◽  
Elias Entrup ◽  
Josephine Hartwig ◽  
Anett Hoppe

Researchers’ task of finding a suitable open access journal for their work is becoming more and more complex: they have to comply with funder's conditions; their institutions hold various agreements with publishers; the number of journals is constantly growing (DOAJ 2018: 11.250 journals, 2021: >16.000 journals); so-called Predatory Publishers cause uncertainty. In order to reduce this complexity, TIB and SLUB Dresden, two major German research libraries, are developing B!SON, a web-based recommender for finding suitable Open Access journals. The tool calculates the similarity between a user's manuscript (title, abstract, references) and already published articles. Based on this similarity measure, B!SON will suggest Open Access journals in which similar articles have appeared. Researchers can use this information as guidance for their decision in which Open Access journal to publish. In addition, librarians can use B!SON for their publication support services and an API will allow the integration into existing library services. The results can be adapted to local conditions (e.g. price caps for institutional funding, Open Access agreements). The tool will use machine-learning techniques combined with a technical implementation of bibliometric algorithms proven in library practice. For this purpose, we will rely on the DOAJ article-level metadata corpus and the OpenCitations Index. We will analyze which article components give most reliable results in textual similarity analysis. Due to the ever-changing corpus of underlying data, the training process will be repeated regularly in the final tool. The information about journals (keywords, license, fees, etc.) will be provided by the DOAJ as well. We have built a community of researchers and librarians that we regularly consult in terms of specifications for the tool as well as – later in the project – acceptance and quality of its results. We plan to provide a beta version of B!SON in spring 2022. The project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. We present our schedule, facts and figures of the B!SON project and focus particularly on technical concepts of the project. 


2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Beall

‘Continuous effort, not strength or intelligence, is the key to understanding our potential.’ Margaret J Wheatley The focus of any academic or research author is to share his or her findings, and to gain respect and reward for publishing. The ideal journal is one that not only publishes an article quickly but also helps the author to improve the article before publication through peer review, selects only the best research so that the author’s article lies alongside other high quality articles, and provides maximum (and long-term) visibility and access to the article. Unfortunately, in the real world, authors need to make tradeoffs between high quality journals, those that work quickly, those that are willing to accept the article and those that provide the best access. Into this mix has come the potential of open access as a means of increasing visibility: journals publish the article without a subscription barrier so anyone, anywhere, can read the article. However, the growth of open access (pushed by institutions, grant bodies and governments as a means of improving human health and knowledge) has come with some unforeseen consequences. In this article, Jeffrey Beall discusses one recent phenomenon that has arisen from the open access movement: that of ‘predatory publishers’. These are individuals or companies that use the open access financial system (author pays, rather than library subscribes) to defraud authors and readers by promising reputable publishing platforms but delivering nothing of the sort. They frequently have imaginary editorial boards, do not operate any peer review or quality control, are unclear about payment requirements and opaque about ownership or location, include plagiarised content and publish whatever somebody will pay them to publish. Predatory publishers generally make false promises to authors and behave unethically. They also undermine the scholarly information and publishing environment with a deluge of poor quality, unchecked and invalidated articles often published on temporary sites, thus losing the scholarly record. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian in Denver, US, has watched the rise of such fraudulent practice, and manages a blog site that names publishers and journals that he has identified as predatory. While Beall’s lists can provide librarians and knowledgeable authors with information on which journals and publishers to be cautious about, several legitimate publishers, library groups and others have joined forces to educate and inform authors in what to look for when selecting journals to publish in (or read). This initiative, called Think. Check. Submit. (http://thinkchecksubmit.org/), was launched in the latter half of 2015 and hopes to raise awareness of disreputable journals while clearly separating them from valid, high quality, open access journals (of which there are many). PIPPA SMART Guest Editor


2012 ◽  
pp. 4-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. North ◽  
J. Wallis ◽  
S. Webb ◽  
B. Weingast

The paper presents a summary of the forthcoming book by the authors and discusses the sample study of the 9 developing countries. While admitting the non-linearity of economic development they claim that the developing countries make a transition from the limited access orders (where the coalition of powerful elite groups plays a major role, that is based on personal connections and hampers free political and economic competition) to the open access orders with democratic government and efficient decentralized economic system. The major conclusion of this article is that what the limited access societies should do is not simply introducing open access institutions, but reorganizing the incentives of the elites so that to limit violence, provide economic and political stability and make a gradual transition to the open access order beneficial for the elites.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document