New peer reviewed, open access article, published on 13 August 2017:
Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers?
Martin Paul Eve* and Ernesto Priego**
*Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK
**City, University of London, London, UK
Download the PDF from tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society
tripleC is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal (ISSN: 1726-670X). All journal content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
Also available at City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/18007/
and at Birkbeck Institutional Research Online: http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/19356/
Abstract: ‘Predatory publishing’ refers to conditions under which gold open access academic publishers claim to conduct peer review and charge for their publishing services but do not, in fact, actually perform such reviews. Most prominently exposed in recent years by Jeffrey Beall, the phenomenon garners much media attention. In this article, we acknowledge that such practices are deceptive but then examine, across a variety of stakeholder groups, what the harm is from such actions to each group of actors. We find that established publishers have a strong motivation to hype claims of predation as damaging to the scholarly and scientific endeavour while noting that, in fact, systems of peer review are themselves already acknowledged as deeply flawed.
Keywords: Open Access, Scholarly Communications, Predatory Publishing, Evaluative Cultures, Academia
Acknowledgement: The authors wish to thank Ross Mounce and David Prosser for helpful comments on the manuscript of this article. Parts of this article on the problems of peer review are derived from and share a narrative with a chapter by Eve that is currently under submission.
You must be logged in to post a comment.