Plan S for/versus Early-Career Researchers

Last week saw the joint-hosting by ALPSP and UKSG of a one day conference in London on the theme of “Shifting Power Centres in Scholarly Communications”. Former researcher and Cabells Journal Auditor Dr. Sneha Rhode attended the event and shares her thoughts below from both sides of the research and policy divide.


The ALPSP and UKSG event on scholarly communications was filled with illuminating talks by librarians, funders and publishers – but the academics panel on Plan S, which comprised of three early career researchers and a professor of sociology, was the highlight for me. Plan S – an initiative for Open Access (OA) publishing that is supported by cOAlition S, an international consortium of research funders – launched in September 2018, and requires that scholarly publications from research funded by public/private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies must be published in compliant OA journals or platforms from January 2021 [1].

It was clear from the panel discussion that Plan S/OA isn’t a priority for researchers. This was shocking for most attendees, but not for me! Not long ago, I was an early career researcher myself at the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London. I know from experience that early career researchers have busy lives doing research, applying for jobs, writing grant proposals, writing research papers and submitting to different journals until their research is accepted. Add to this, the stress of short tenures, limited funding and the power imbalance between researchers and principal investigators. It was apparent from the panel discussion that advancing in a highly-competitive career, where success is based mostly on the number and impact factor of research articles produced while having little control over money and decisions that are made in the publishing life cycle, makes it hard for OA to be a priority for researchers. Moreover, there has been limited engagement between librarians/funders/publishers and researchers regarding Plan S. No wonder, most researchers know very little about Plan S.

I wholeheartedly support OA and Plan S – it is a great initiative aimed at solving some of the problems that researchers face. Principle 10 in Plan S mentions assessing the impact of work during funding decisions, rather than the impact factor or other journal metrics (shout out to Ireland for putting this into place from next year) while Principle 4 mentions OA publication fees being covered by the funders or research institutions, and not by individual researchers [1]. However, individual members of cOAlition S plan to monitor compliance and sanction non-compliance by withholding grant funds, discounting non-compliant publications as part of a researcher’s track record in grant applications, and/or excluding non-compliant grant holders from future funding calls. This seems harsh, and yet it might be the only way to ensure compliance. However, I wish there were other methods to ensure Plan-S compliance out there that are geared towards researchers. I wish funders would introduce incentives for researchers to publish OA that could help them in their funding grants, tenure-track applications and promotions instead. Moreover, I also hope additional funds are assigned, and efforts are made by university librarians and funders to improve author engagement and awareness to Plan S and OA.

We at Cabells understand the need for author awareness to Plan S and OA. We are constantly trying to innovate to improve researchers’ work. With this in mind, the Journal Whitelist, our curated list of over 11,000 academic journals spanning 18 disciplines that guides researchers and institutions in getting the most impact out of their research, will soon start listing additional “Access” information. This additional information about OA policies (that govern Plan-S compliance) for individual journals will help smoothen researchers’ transition into publishing Plan S-compliant research.

ALPSP and UKSG deserve huge credit for showing us that a lot needs to be done by the publishing industry to make early career researchers are an integral part of Plan S. Early career researchers are invaluable to the publishing industry. They perform research that is published in journals and they are the editors and reviewers of tomorrow. We at Cabells recognize this and look forward to creating a synergy between researchers and Plan S into the future.

[1] https://www.coalition-s.org/.


sneha
Dr. Sneha Rhode, Cabells Journal Auditor

 

 

 

 

Open Access Week 2019: “Open for Whom? Equity in Open Knowledge”

It is #OpenAccessWeek, and a number of players in the scholarly communications industry have used the occasion to produce their latest thinking and surveys, with some inevitable contradictions and confusion. Simon Linacre unpicks the spin to identify the key takeaways from the week.


It’s that time again, Open Access Week -or #openaccessweek, or #OAWeek19 or any number of hashtag-infected labels. The aim of this week for those in scholarly communications is to showcase what new products, surveys or insight they have to a market more focused than usual on all things Open Access.

There is a huge amount of content out there to wade through, as any Twitter search or scroll through press releases will confirm. A number have caught the eye, so here is your indispensable guide to what’s hot and what’s not in OA:

  • There are a number of new OA journal and monograph launches with new business models, in particular with IET Quantum Communication and MIT Press, which uses a subscription model to offset the cost of OA
  • There have been a number of publisher surveys over the years which show that authors are still to engage fully with OA, and this year is no exception. Taylor & Francis have conducted a large survey which shows that fewer than half of researchers believe everyone who needs access to their research has it, but just 18% have deposited a version of their article in a repository. Fewer than half would pay an APC to make their article OA, but two-thirds did not recognize any of the initiatives that support OA. Just 5% had even heard of Plan S
  • And yet, a report published by Delta Think shows that OA publications continue to increase, with articles published in Hybrid OA journals alongside paywall articles declining compared to pure OA articles. In other words, more and more OA articles continue to be published, but the hybrid element is on the decrease, hence the reports’ assertion that the scholarly communications market had already reached ‘peak hybrid’

At the end of the Delta Think report was perhaps the most intriguing question among all the other noise around OA. If the share of Hybrid OA is in decline, but there is an increase in so-called read-and-publish or transformative agreements between consortia and publishers, could Plan S actually revive Hybrid OA? The thinking is that as transformative agreements usually include waivers for OA articles in Hybrid journals, the increase in these deals could increase Hybrid OA articles, the very articles that Plan S mandates against.

And this puts large consortia in the spotlight, as in some cases a major funding agency signed up to Plan S may conflict with read-and-publish agreements increasing Hybrid OA outputs. It will be interesting to see how all this develops in the next OA Week in October 2020. The countdown starts here.

Cabells renews partnership with CLOCKSS to further shared goals of supporting scholarly research

Cabells is excited to announce the renewal of its partnership with CLOCKSS, the decentralized preservation archive that ensures the long-term survival of scholarly content in digital format. Cabells is pleased to provide complimentary access to the Journal Whitelist and Journal Blacklist databases for an additional two years to CLOCKSS, to further the organizations’ shared goals of supporting and preserving scholarly publications for the benefit of the global research community.

The goal of Cabells is to provide academics with the intelligent data needed for comprehensive journal evaluations to safeguard scholarly communication and advance the dissemination of high-value research.  Assisting CLOCKSS in its mission to provide secure and sustainable archives for the preservation of academic publications in their original format is a logical and rewarding collaboration.

“We are proud to renew our partnership with CLOCKSS. Our mission to protect the integrity of scholarly communication goes hand in hand with their work to ensure the secure and lasting preservation of scholarly research,” said Kathleen Berryman, Director of Business Relations with Cabells.

In helping to protect and preserve academic research, Cabells and CLOCKSS are fortunate to play vital roles in the continued prosperity of the scholarly community.


 

About: Cabells – Since its founding over 40 years ago, Cabells services have grown to include both the Journal Whitelist and the Journal Blacklist, manuscript preparation tools, and a suite of powerful metrics designed to help users find the right journals, no matter the stage of their career. The searchable Journal Whitelist database includes 18 academic disciplines from more than 11,000 international scholarly publications. The Journal Blacklist is the only searchable database of predatory journals, complete with detailed violation reports. Through continued partnerships with major academic publishers, journal editors, scholarly societies, accreditation agencies, and other independent databases, Cabells provides accurate, up-to-date information about academic journals to more than 750 universities worldwide. To learn more, visit www.cabells.com.

About: CLOCKSS is a not-for-profit joint venture between the world’s leading academic publishers and research libraries whose mission is to build a sustainable, international, and geographically distributed dark archive with which to ensure the long-term survival of Web-based scholarly publications for the benefit of the greater global research community.

Updated CCI and DA metrics hit the Journal Whitelist

Hot off the press, newly updated Cabell’s Classification Index© (CCI©) and Difficulty of Acceptance© (DA©) scores for all Journal Whitelist publication summaries are now available. These insightful metrics are part of our powerful mix of intelligent data leading to informed and confident journal evaluations.

Research has become increasingly cross-disciplinary and, accordingly, an individual journal might publish articles relevant to several fields.  This means that researchers in different fields often use and value the same journal differently. Our CCI© calculation is a normalized citation metric that measures how a journal ranks compared to others in each discipline and topic in which it publishes and answers the question, “How and to whom is this journal important?” For example, a top journal in computer science might sometimes publish articles about educational technology, but researchers in educational technology might not really “care” about this journal the same way that computer scientists do. Conversely, top educational technology journals likely publish some articles about computer science, but these journals are not necessarily as highly regarded by the computer science community. In short, we think that journal evaluations must be more than just a number.

CCI screenshot 2019 updates

The CCI© gauges how well a paper might perform in specific disciplines and topics and compares the influence of journals publishing content from different disciplines. Further, within each discipline, the CCI© classifies a journal’s influence for each topic that it covers. This gives users a way to evaluate not just how influential a journal is, but also the degree to which a journal influences different disciplines.

For research to have real impact it must first be seen, making maximizing visibility a priority for many scholars. Our Difficulty of Acceptance© (DA©) metric is a better way for researchers to gauge a journal’s exclusivity to balance the need for visibility with the very real challenge of getting accepted for publication.

DA screenshot 2019 updates

The DA© rating quantifies a journal’s history of publishing articles from top-performing research institutions. These institutions tend to dedicate more faculty, time, and resources towards publishing often and in “popular” journals. A journal that accepts more articles from these institutions will tend to expect the kind of quality or novelty that the availability of resources better facilitates. So, researchers use the DA© to find the journals with the best blend of potential visibility and manageable exclusivity.

For more information on our metrics, methods, and products, please visit www.cabells.com.

When does research end and publishing begin?

In his latest post, Simon Linacre argues that in order for authors to make optimal decisions – and not to get drawn into predatory publishing nightmares – research and publishing efforts should overlap substantially.


In a recent online discussion on predatory publishing, there was some debate as to the motivations of authors to chose predatory journals. A recent study in the ALPSP journal Learned Publishing found that academics publishing in such journals usually fell into one of two camps – either they were “uninformed” that the journal they had chosen to publish in was predatory in nature, or they were “unethical” in knowingly choosing such a journal in order to satisfy some publication goals.

However, a third category of researcher was suggested, that of the ‘unfussy’ author who neither cares nor knows what sort of journal they are publishing in. Certainly, there may be some overlap with the other two categories, but what they all have in common is bad decision-making. Whether one does not know, does not care, or does not mind which journal one publishes in, it seems to me that one should do so on all three counts.

It was at this point where one of the group posed one of the best questions I have seen in many years in scholarly communications: when it comes to article publication, where does the science end in scientific research? Due in part to the terminology as well as the differing processes, the concept of research and publication are regarded as somehow distinct or separate. Part of the same eco-system, for sure, but requiring different skills, knowledge and approaches. The question is a good one as it challenges this duality. Isn’t is possible for science to encompass some of the publishing process itself? And shouldn’t the publishing process become more involved in the process of research?

The latter is already happening to a degree in moves by major publishers to climb up the supply chain and become more involved in research services provision (e.g. the acquisition of article platform services provider Atypon by Wiley). On the other side, there is surely an argument that at the end of experiments or data collection, analyzing data logically and writing up conclusions, there is a place for scientific process to be followed in choosing a legitimate outlet with appropriate peer review processes? Surely any university or funder would expect such a scientific approach at every level from their employees or beneficiaries. And a failure to do this allows in not only sub-optimal choices of journal, but worse predatory outlets which will ultimately delegitimize scientific research as a whole.

I get that that it may not be such a huge scandal if some ho-hum research is published in a ‘crappy’ journal so that an academic can tick some boxes at their university. However, while the outcome may not be particularly harmful, the tacit allowing of such lazy academic behavior surely has no place in modern research. Structures that force gaming of the system should, of course, be revised, but one can’t help thinking that if academics carried the same rigor and logic forward into their publishing decisions as they did in their research, scholarly communications would be in much better shape for all concerned.

Still without peer?

Next week the annual celebration of peer review takes place, which despite being centuries old is still an integral part of scholarly communications. To show Cabells’ support of #PeerReviewWeek, Simon Linacre looks at why peer review deserves its week in the calendar and to survive for many years to come.


I was recently asked by Cabells’ partners Editage to upload a video to YouTube explaining how the general public benefited from peer review. This is a good question, because I very much doubt the general public is aware at all of what peer review is and how it impacts their day-to-day lives. But if you reflect for just a moment, it is clear it impacts almost everything, much of which is taken for granted on a day-to-day basis.

Take making a trip to the shops. A car is the result of thousands of experiments and validated peer review research over a century to come up with the safest and most efficient means of driving people and things from one place to another; each supermarket product has been health and safety tested; each purchase uses digital technology such as the barcode that has advanced through the years to enable fast and accurate purchasing; even the license plate recognition software that gives us a ticket when we stay too long in the car park will be a result of some peer reviewed research (although most people may struggle to describe that as a ‘benefit’).

So, we do all benefit from peer review, even if we do not appreciate it all the time. Does that prove the value of peer review? For some, it is still an inefficient system for scholarly communications, and over the years a number of platforms have sought to disrupt it. For example, PLoS has been hugely successful as a publishing platform where a ‘light touch peer review’ has taken place to enable large-scale, quick turnaround publishing. More recently, F1000 has developed a post-publication peer review platform where all reviews are visible and take place on almost all articles that are submitted. While these platforms have undoubtedly offered variety and author choice to scientific publishing processes, they have yet to change the game, particularly in social sciences where more in-depth peer review is required.

Perhaps real disruption will be seen to accommodate peer review rather than change it. This week’s announcement at the ALPSP Conference by Cactus Communications – part of the same organization as Editage – of an AI-powered platform that can allow authors to submit articles to be viewed by multiple journal editors may just change the way peer review works. Instead of the multiple submit-review-reject cycles authors have to endure, they can submit their article to a system that can check for hygiene factor quality characteristics and relevance to journals’ coverage, and match them with potentially interested editors who can offer the opportunity for the article to then be peer reviewed.

If it works across a good number of journals, one can see that from the perspective of authors, editors and publishers, it would be a much more satisfactory process than the traditional one that still endures. And a much quicker one to boot, which means that the general public should see the benefits of peer review all the more speedily.

Agile thinking

In early November, Cabells is very pleased to be supporting the Global Business School Network (GBSN) at its annual conference in Lisbon, Portugal. In looking forward to the event, Simon Linacre looks at its theme of ‘Measuring the Impact of Business Schools’, and what this means for the development of scholarly communications.


For those of you not familiar with the Global Business School Network, they have been working with business schools, industry and charitable organizations in the developing world for many years, with the aim of enhancing access to high quality, highly relevant management education. As such, they are now a global player in developing international networking, knowledge-sharing and collaboration in wider business education communities.

Cabells will support their Annual Conference in November in its position as a leader in publishing analytics, and will host a workshop on ‘Research Impact for the Developing World’. This session will focus on the nature of management research itself – whether it should focus on global challenges rather than just business ones, and whether it can be measured effectively by traditional metrics, or if new ones can be introduced. The thinking is that unless the business school community is more pro-active about research and publishing models themselves, wider social goals will not be met and an opportunity lost to set the agenda globally.

GBSN and its members play a pivotal role here, both in seeking to take a lead on a new research agenda and also in seizing an opportunity to be at the forefront of what relevant research looks like and how it can be incentivized and rewarded. With the advent of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – a “universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity” – not only is there an increased push to change the dynamics of what prioritizes research, there comes with it a need to assess that research in different terms. This question will form the nub many of the discussions in Lisbon in November.

So, what kind of new measures could be applied? Well firstly, this does assume that measures can be applied in the first place, and there are many people who think that any kind of measurement is unhelpful and unworkable. However, academic systems are based around reward and recognition, so to a greater or lesser degree, it is difficult to see measures disappearing completely. Responsible use of such measures is key, as is the informed use of a number of data points available – this is why Cabells includes unique data such as time to publication, acceptance rates, and its own Cabells Classification Index© (CCI©) which measures journal performance using citation data within subject areas.

In a new research environment, just as important will be new measures such as Altmetrics, which Cabells also includes in its data. Altmetrics can help express the level of online engagement research publications have had, and there is a feeling that this research communications space will become much bigger and more varied as scholars and institutions alike seek new ways to disseminate research information. This is one of the most exciting areas of development in research at the moment, and it will be fascinating to see what ideas GBSN and its members can come up with at their Annual Conference.

If you would like to attend the GBSN Annual Conference, Early Bird Registration is open until the 15th September.

Signs of a predatory publisher

The variety of tactics used by predatory publishers to fool unsuspecting authors into submitting their work are frustrating and dishonest to be sure, but they also provide us at Cabells with the motivation to keep working at exposing them. But what does it mean when these deceitful operations no longer try very hard to trick anyone?


“Really? That’s the best they could do?”  That was our initial thought here at Cabells after receiving the most recent invitation to publish that crossed our collective desk. We then thought, “Who would be tricked into thinking this is a genuine invitation from a legitimate publisher? Did they really think this would work?” Our second thought was a bit more troublesome, “Are they even trying to fool anyone at this point?”

Nice day!

We have learnt about your published precious paper in LEARNED PUBLISHING with the title Cabells’ Journal Whitelist and Blacklist: Intelligent data for informed journal evaluations, and the topic of the paper has impressed us a lot.

Researchers specializing in a wide range of disciplines have expressed keen interests in your paper.

That’s it. That’s the entire message followed by two links, one to “Contribute Your Articles” and another to “Become the Editorial Member.”  At least some of the language above is likely familiar to anyone who has had an article published in an academic journal and is fairly easy to identify as suspicious, to say the least.

However, there is usually a bit more of an “honest” effort to seem like a legitimate operation. At least a bit more wooing in the text of the invitation. To be frank, these folks seem to be mailing it in a bit. After clicking the link, there was not much evidence present to move us from our initial impression:

Among the red flags: despite claiming to publish 39 journals, SCIREA lists approximately 10,800 editors; that would be around 277 editors per journal. It is safe to say there are not enough articles to go around for each of these editors to be kept busy.

There are also many of the standard red flags waved by most predatory operations:

  • the promise of rapid publication (“manuscripts are peer-reviewed and a first decision provided to authors approximately 20 days after submission; acceptance to publication is undertaken in 5 days.”)
  • mention of an APC but with no further information (“free for readers, with article processing charges (APC) paid by authors or their institutions”) – the link leads nowhere, which brings us to our next warning sign
  • numerous non-working links:

The four links in the column on the left: Journals, Articles, Conferences, and Editors are functional and take the user to those respective pages. The remaining 17 links in the three columns to the right are all non-functioning links that simply bump up to the top of the current page.

These signs taken together would likely be enough to alert most academics that they are probably looking at a predatory publisher’s website. Here at Cabells, we have the luxury of a team of experts who can dive in to remove all doubt and shine a light on these types of operations through inclusion in our Journal Blacklist. Stay tuned for an update on the results of the investigation which is still in its beginning stages, SPOILER ALERT, things are not looking good for SCIREA.

The fact that there is not much of an effort on the part of SCIREA to come across as legitimate is a concern. Is this an indication that subterfuge is no longer necessary to achieve their goal of collecting manuscripts and APCs? Is it now enough just to announce your presence as an outlet for publication, even an obviously dishonest one, and the money will come rolling in due to authors needing/wanting to have their work published?

We will continue to monitor this situation and will report our findings. As always, we love hearing from the academic community with feedback, tips or questions on predatory activity; please don’t hesitate to contact us at blacklist@cabells.com.

Publish and be damned

The online world is awash with trolling, gaslighting and hate speech, and the academic portion is sadly not immune, despite its background in evidence, logical argument and rigorous analysis. For the avoidance of doubt, Simon Linacre establishes fact from fiction for Cabells in terms of Open Access, predatory publishing and product names.


When I went to university as a very naive 18-year-old Brit, for the first time I met an American. He was called Rick who lived down the corridor in my hall of residence. He was older than me, and a tad dull if I’m honest, but one evening we were chatting in our room about someone else in the hall, and he warned me about setting too much store by perceptions: “To assume is to make an ass out of u and me,” he told me sagely.

Twenty years later, while I have come to realize this phrase is a little corny, it still sticks in my mind every time I see or hear about people being angry about a situation where the full facts are not known. Increasingly, this is played out on social media, where sadly there are thousands of people making asses out of u, me and pretty much everyone else without any evidence whatsoever for their inflammatory statements.

To provide a useful point of reference for the future, we at Cabells thought we should define positions we hold on some key issues in scholarly publishing. So, without further ado, here is your cut-out-and-keep guide to our ACTUAL thinking in response to the following statements:

  • ‘Cabells is anti-OA’ or ‘Cabells likes paywalls’: Not true, in any way shape or form. Cabells is pro-research, pro-quality and pro-authors; we are OA-neutral in the sense that we do not judge journals or publishers in these terms. Over 13% of the Whitelist are pure OA journals and two-thirds are hybrid OA.
  • ‘Cabells is anti-OA like Beall’ or ‘You’re carrying on Beall’s work’: Cabells had several discussions with Jeffrey Beall around the time he stopped work on his list and Cabells published the Blacklist for the first time in the same year (2017). However, the list did NOT start with Beall’s list, does NOT judge publishers (only journals) for predatory behavior, and the Blacklist shows considerable divergence from Beall’s List – only 234 journals are listed on both (according to Strinzel et al (2019)).
  • ‘Predatory publishing is insignificant’ or ‘Don’t use the term predatory publishing’: The recent FTC judgement fining the Omics Group over $50m shows that these practices are hardly insignificant, and that sum in no way quantifies the actual or potential hurt done by publishing fake science or bad science without the safety net of peer review. Other terms for such practices may in time gain traction – fake journals, junk science, deceptive practices – but until then the most commonly used term seems the most appropriate.
  • ‘The Whitelist and Blacklist are racist’: The origins of the word ‘blacklist’ come from 17th century England, and was used to describe a number of people who had opposed Charles II during the Interregnum. It is a common feature of language that some things are described negatively as dark or black and vice versa. Cabells is 100% pro-equality and pro-diversity in academic research and publishing.
  • ‘Cabells unfairly targets new or small journals with the Blacklist’: Some of the criteria used for the Blacklist include benchmarks that a very few legitimate journals may not pass. For example, there is a criterion regarding the speed of growth of a journal. This is a minor violation and identifies typical predatory behavior. It is not a severe violation which Cabells uses to identify journals for the Blacklist, and nor is it used in isolation – good journals will not be stigmatized by inclusion on the Blacklist simply because they won’t be included. In the two years the Blacklist has been in operation, just three journals out of 11,500+ listed have requested a review.

Building bridges at NASIG 2019

The theme of this year’s NASIG Annual Conference – Building Bridges – was appropriate for a number of reasons. Not only did the meeting take place in the City of Bridges, but the idea of connecting the various global communities within academia was present in many of the sessions. What’s more, the core mission of NASIG is to “facilitate and improve the distribution, acquisition, and long-term accessibility of information resources in all formats and business models”: in essence, building a bridge to knowledge.

There were an array of sessions building on this “connectivity” theme: discussions on linking to disabled members of the community through greater accessibility, to resource users through technical and customer services, and to future academics through digital preservation, to name just a few. However, the session that caught our collective eye at Cabells was one that focused not so much on building bridges, but rather on blocking the way down a dangerous road …

While there is no debate (we think) that predatory journals are causing problems in the scholarly publishing landscape, there are differing opinions on the magnitude of these problems.  “Minding Your Ps and Qs: Predatory Journals, Piracy, and Quality Questions” was presented by Marydee Ojala, Editor of Online Searcher Magazine and Regina Reynolds, Director of the U.S. ISSN Center and Head of the ISSN Section of the Library of Congress.  Ms. Ojala, a former academic and corporate librarian, spoke of the danger, especially in today’s ‘fake news’ environment, of calling into question the validity of scholarly research by muddying the water with junk science and ‘sting’ articles filled with nonsense.  Ms. Reynolds suggested the problem of predatory publishing is overstated and exists due to a market created by academia through several enabling forces.

What was made clear in this session is the fact that more and more librarians are becoming aware of predatory publishing and the dangers it poses. They are also becoming keenly aware that they must rethink how they evaluate collections and what researchers are finding in available databases. Instead of going directly to subscription databases, many researchers turn first to Google or Google Scholar. A quick search on these platforms will make it clear the results contain predatory articles alongside legitimate ones. The use of LibGuides, instructional videos, posters, presentations and even one-on-one communication to educate researchers can go a long way to changing the methods they use.

When discussing whether the problem of predatory journals is overstated (a firm ‘no’ in Cabells’ opinion), Mr. Reynolds made several interesting points.  Enabling market forces such as open access, a rapidly growing number of scholars worldwide, the disadvantages of the those in the global south, and the ‘publish or perish’ mindset have created a fertile ground for predatory publishing activity. To think that it will not be taken advantage of is short-sighted.  Predatory journals give scholars who wouldn’t otherwise have a chance to publish a chance to publish; this highlights an uneven playing field in academia that must be corrected to stem the tide of predatory enterprise.

Ms. Reynolds discussed the idea that predatory journals exist as a response to an environment, and market, created by academia itself.  Is the scholarly community willing to turn its collective back on predatory publications?  Is every academic serving on the editorial board of a predatory journal doing so without their knowledge and consent? Of course not, just as not everyone who publishes in a fake publication is duped into doing so. There must be a concerted effort throughout the scholarly community to reject the easy route to publication and CV glory on the back of fraudulent publications. As Ms. Ojala pointed out, there are resources (most notably the Journal Blacklist) that are working to shine a light on deceitful operations to alert researchers, librarians and administrators to stay away; as Ms. Reynolds pointed out, these stakeholders must be willing to heed the warning.