In this post we reflect on the current threats to trust in scholarly journal publishing, and the implications for organizations like Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) that seek to uphold that trust.
While higher rates of endogeny can help indexes identify journals being used for self-promotion, nepotism, or other unethical ends, endogeny itself should not be equated with them and can be the result of a narrow or new field of research.
PubMed is found to contain predatory journals and publishers, likely reflecting a long-term and broader problem, which only adds to the confusion about what exactly PubMed represents at this point.
What, if anything, should be done about the fact that the Open Access movement embraces not only a variety of definitions of the term “open access,” but also a diversity of visions as to what constitutes an acceptable future for access to scholarship?
Fifteen years after the term was coined, we still don’t have a single agreed-upon definition of Open Access (OA). What are the implications of this diversity of views within the OA movement, and how much does it really matter?
An interview with librarian and open access skeptic Jeffrey Beall. He discusses his work, the criteria for declaring an organization a “predatory publisher,” and how he would fix the scholarly communications system.
We often hear that the majority of open access journals charge authors no fee for publication. Is that true? Well, it depends on how you count journals.
If the Internet created a burgeoning market of cheap academic journal knockoffs, should we be surprised to witness new knockoff ratings companies?
One month since Science Magazine published its exposé on the lack of peer-review in, and deceptive business practices of, many open access journals, investigative reporter, John Bohannon, responds to critics.
What can be learned from John Bohannon’s investigative study of open access publishers?
Lars Bjørnshauge talks about where the DOAJ is going.