[ The following text is in the "Windows-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
The 7th title was v.1(1) which carried the title: Australasian journal of musculoskeletal medicine.
It is hard to imagine this was a 'rogue' operation since the journals have ISSNs ...
Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzrlib_at_library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzrlib_at_library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Hamaker, Charles [cahamake_at_UNCC.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:10 AM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: [CLS Junk released by User action] Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine published by Excerpta Medica was published at least from 2002 to 2005. There are holdings of the journal at the State Library of New South Wales:, Vol. 1, issue 2 (2002)-v. 4, issue 1 (2005). Elsevier has indicated there are about 6 of these types of titles that they published between 2000 and 2005. See Peter Suber?s blog for more info:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/05/elsevier-confirms-6-fake-journals-more.html
Chuck Hamaker
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim_at_lboro.ac.uk
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:42 AM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
My understanding - which may be wrong - was that Elsevier did NOT "launch new journals" in the Merck scandal, but rather issued a single issue of a fake journal stuffed with pro-Merck articles. What Elsevier did was unethical and grossly misleading, but I don't think can be used as supporting evidence about publishers' motives for launching new journals.
Yes, commercial publishers launch new journals in THE HOPE of making profits from them; but those profits are often an extremely long time coming, or may never appear at all.
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Head
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509 223053
e mail c.oppenheim_at_lboro.ac.uk
________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Uhlir, Paul
Sent: 19 May 2009 06:43
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
Sally, I don't wish to belabour the point, but I also don't want it to be missed. I appear to have been too oblique in my original comment, which may have obscured its relevance to you as well as to others on this listserv. What I meant to address was your assertion that you think it is "a fallacy that publishers launch new journals in order to make money". The link I provided was to a report by Peter Suber that Elsevier in Australia launched 6 fake biomedical journals that included "a series of sponsored article publications". Elsevier declined to name the sponsors, although when this story initially broke about the first two journals, it was reported that those were sponsored by Merck. It is quite clear, however, that all 6 journals were launched solely to make money, basically to provide "infomercials" written by Elsevier's clients under the guise of independent, peer-reviewed research results.
More important than addressing your assertion, however, was to bring this scandal to the attention of the recipients of this listserv, since these incidents do not appear to have been widely reported. They strike me as a rather fundamental breach of scientific integrity and publishing ethics in the sensitive area of public health that should be of concern to everyone--researchers, publishers, and the broader public.
Paul
________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Sally Morris
Sent: Sun 5/17/2009 4:48 AM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES
Sorry Paul, I don?t see the relevance of this to my general response to a wide-ranging and, IMHO, unfounded comment
Sally
Sally Morris
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
Email: sally_at_morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Uhlir, Paul
Sent: 15 May 2009 22:38
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES
Sally, you may wish to reconsider your assumptions and assertions in light of the following:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/05/elsevier-confirms-6-fake-journals-more.html
Paul
________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Sally Morris
Sent: Fri 5/15/2009 10:56 AM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES
Tenopir and King found that the average number of articles per journal was, in fact, increasing steadily. I think it?s a fallacy that publishers launch new journals in order to make money; it is, surely, more profitable to expand an existing journal (assuming you can increase the price accordingly)? New journals take years to make any money, even if they succeed ? and not all do
Sally
Sally Morris
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
Email: sally_at_morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 15 May 2009 15:33
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Colin Smith at Open University
I've just realised I quoted the wrong day in the email I just sent to
the forum. It should have been Mon 11 May, not Fri. If this reaches you
in time, please correct it during moderation.
On Mon 11 May 2009 at 09:27 Sally Morris wrote:
While Andrew Adams' letter makes some valid points, I would like to
point out that the number of articles per author has not changed over
many years (Tenopir and King have excellent data on this). Thus neither
'publish or perish' nor 'greedy publishers' have contributed in any way
to the steady growth (not 'explosion') of research articles - it simply
reflects growth in research funding, and thus number of researchers."
Even if the number of articles per author has not changed significantly,
surely the issue here is the number of journals in which those articles
are published? Is there any data on this? If the steady growth in
articles is being spread thinly across a larger number of titles then
this could be interpreted as evidence for the needless launch of new
journals in a saturated market.
Anecdotally, I seem to come across more and more journals publishing two
issues in one, presumably because of a lack of copy-flow. Indeed, I have
worked for at least one publisher where a decision was taken to exploit
an (unconvincing) niche in the market by launching a new journal,
instead of looking to enhance the editorial content of an existing
title. That journal then struggled for copy, publishing very thin or
joint issues, but generated more income than if the publisher had
accommodated the extra papers by increasing the size or number of issues
of an (appropriate) existing journal.
Colin Smith
Research Repository Manager
Open Research Online (ORO)
Open University Library
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
http://twitter.com/smithcolin
http://oro.open.ac.uk<
http://oro.open.ac.uk/>
Received on Fri May 22 2009 - 17:13:03 BST