[Open-access] special issue on publishing reform in publication'?

[Peter Murray-Rust]

This is a useful discussion point.

I stand by what I wrote - in the field of chemistry and materials my
analysis of the papers and the editorial board (of Molecules) seems fully
satisfactory. See http://www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules/editors which has
many people I know and many Nobel Laureates. The journal has been going for
17 years and I have no evidence that these people are on the board without
their knowledge.

ALL journals can have rogue papers. Some years ago J.A.C.S published a
paper on Sodium Hydride oxidation (sic)  whose argument was rubbish (
http://totallysynthetic.com/blog/?p=1903 . The blogosphere tore it to
shreds in 24 hours including repeating the experiment. No competent referee
could have allowed it through. Yet it took about three years for the ACS to
issue a retraction. I see no real difference with the current climate
science paper. Wiley published a worse one (in Proteomics, on the relation
of the soul (sic) to mitochondria
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/feb/13/thankstocjv5040forputting).
I myself have been been on the editorial board of a journal and asked
to
review an appalling paper - I said on no account should it go through - and
it did.

So it isn't appropriate to criticise a publisher on one bad paper. Who
knows, it may even get retracted. (I haven't read it). It may even be an
appropriate viewpoint even if not mainstream.

Some publishers have complete journals which are rubbish and which break
all the rules of peer-review. One Elsevier example is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Chaos.2C_Solitons_.26_Fractals where
hundreds of unacceptable papers have been published. But that wouldn't stop
me publishing with Elsevier. (I have stopped for other more valid reasons).

I have no evidence one way or another than MDPI has more or less
unacceptable journals and papers than any other.

For any journal I would be concerned if there was widespread documented
malpractice which had been reported and no action had been taken. And if
this were true for a number of journals from a publisher I could be
concerned for the publisher. I have no evidence of this in this case.



On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Beall, Jeffrey
<Jeffrey.Beall at ucdenver.edu>wrote:

> Bjoern, Peter, and others:****
>
> ** **
>
> This blog post may be relevant:****
>
> ** **
>
> “Why I Resigned from the Editorial Board of *Climate* over its Akasofu
> Publication” =
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/brierly-resignation-climate-akasofu.html**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> The author is Dr. Chris Brierley from University College London. *Climate*is published by MDPI. This publisher is not on my list, but I do find it
> borderline, and I regularly receive inquiries asking whether it’s
> legitimate or not. (I had a fee-waived article published in one of their
> journals in 2010). ****
>
> ** **
>
> So, this question may be relevant: Do you want to have your article
> published by a corporation that also publishes questionable climate science
> research?****
>
> ** **
>
> --Jeffrey Beall****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-access-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:
> open-access-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Bjoern Brembs
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 5:19 AM
> To: Peter Murray-Rust
> Cc: open-science; open-access at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [Open-access] special issue on publishing reform in
> 'publication'?
>
> ** **
>
> On Thursday, September 5, 2013, 12:41:36 PM, you wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> > So I would have no current reservations. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Excellent, thanks!****
>
> ** **
>
> Would you be interested in contributing a paper on current content-mining
> state of the art and what infrastructure would have to be developed to
> fully leverage the technology?****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Bjoern****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> Björn Brembs****
>
> ---------------------------------------------****
>
> http://brembs.net****
>
> Neurogenetics****
>
> Universität Regensburg****
>
> Germany****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> open-access mailing list****
>
> open-access at lists.okfn.org****
>
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access****
>
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access****
>



-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20130905/b0dadcb4/attachment.html>