Heads Up new Science is a Special Issue on Scholarly Communication

Oct 03 2013 Published by under publishing, scholarly communication

The "sting" article that details a Sokal-Affair-type test of crap open access publishers to see if they really were crap open access publishers is getting all the attention. (do note that Hindawi and PlosONE quickly rejected the manuscript and Plos even questioned the ethical issues - hence they are not crap publishers but decent publishers).

Elsewhere in the issue that just went live at 2pm are articles on:

2 responses so far

  • Zen Faulkes says:

    "(D)o note that Hindawi and PlosONE quickly rejected the manuscript and Plos even questioned the ethical issues - hence they are not crap publishers but decent publishers."

    Several publishers that were labeled "predatory" also rejected the paper (18%, according to the article).

    I am not, however, willing to label a publisher as "crap" or "decent" on the basis of any one manuscript. Publishers should be considered "decent" because of their ongoing engagement with the scientific community, and honestly transparency in their practices.

    PLOS ONE and Hindawi should not be considered "decent" just because they rejected this paper (though it helps).

    • Christina Pikas says:

      You are absolutely right - couldn't agree more. Most publishers are neither entirely crap or entirely decent. The big E for example has some real crap publications but also some of the best and their policies don't need any further categorization. Thanks for commenting.