Blog Post 5: October 8

The study performed by Antelman gave a lot of great insight as to how open access articles impact research. It seems like common sense that articles that are available to the general public would be accessed more often than those that are not, but at the same time the more important question might be which articles the academic world is using. The only thing I did not like about this study is that the articles they selected seemed to be at random. I really like that they looked into multiple fields of study, but it seems to me that they should have had a formula based on publication type and/or author to follow in the selection process. The conclusion that she came to seems spot on. I think that given the amount of access we have to articles that are online, it would be very easy for someone to only cite sources that are easily available to them, also called citation bias. I know that I am generally guilty of this technique whenever I need to do quick research on a topic. I would be very interested to see this study performed strictly on how open access articles affect student research. I have a feeling that the results would be staggeringly in favor of open access.

One of the problems that I had been pondering while reading the first article about open access journals was how to tell if the articles, or publishers as well, are any good or trustworthy. The article "As Open Access Explodes, How to Tell the Good from the Bad and the Ugly" did a very good job of pointing this issue out. Just because an article is open access and online does not mean it is any good, so then how can we tell if it is a credible source? The point that stuck out to me the most was about the transparency of the publishing process. I am not surprised at all that the journals that clearly state their publication and acceptance procedures are the ones that are most trustworthy. After all, the only reason not to clearly state this information is if there is something to hide. I also found it curious when they stated that open access journals are essentially finding new ways to lower the bar on acceptance policies article standards since they make more money for each new article that they accept. This seems like a conflict of interest for academic integrity more than anything else.

I think Jeffrey Beall hits the nail on the head with his article on predatory publishers. Its sad that these publishers exist but it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Beall makes a really good point when he state that the people being hurt the most by these publishers are the scientists themselves. Even if an article is legitimate and of good quality, it can danger the author's reputation if it is published alongside plagiarized articles. It seems to me that this problem has come somewhat out of a way to circumvent the peer review system. These predatory journals obviously do not use legitimate peer review if they are publishing plagiarized articles. That may make this issue more open access vs peer review. Both have great advantages, but both have faults. Really neither of the systems are perfect, but maybe there is a middle ground that can be found to benefit everyone involved.

Upon reading the article from the New York Times, it seems that this issue is much more intense than I would have expected. This is truly like spam emails and phishing for the academic world. I think it is great that Beall keeps a "black list" of predatory publishers, but I think it might actually be a better idea for there to be a "white list" of approved publishers. Given the nature of this issue a "black list" would never be complete, new predatory publishers appear every single week. A "white list" on the other hand could be much more comprehensive and easier to check before submitting articles. This could help prevent new authors from living the horror stories that were told about well respected scientist being unable to alienate themselves from these predatory publishers.

I thoroughly enjoy the TED talk on "Battling Bad Science." It was extremely informative, as TED talks always are, and the speaker was excellent. It was refreshing to hear someone explain all of the ways that studies can be rigged in order to generate a certain result. I think the same logic can be applied to the predatory publishers. They aim to shield the true process, as Goldacre explained the medicine companies do, and never really reveal their true intentions. My take-away from this lecture was that we need to have more insight to the full process. Essentially, if a publisher does not have full transparency on their publishing process and standards, then they should not be trusted.

The DOAJ is a very cool website that can be very helpful when looking into open access publications. They aim to provide the best open access articles in one place while still maintaining academic integrity. In order for a publication to be included in the DOAJ it must go through a strict application process, this helps them determine the legitimacy of the source. One of the main requirements for inclusion is that the articles in the journal must be subject to peer review before publication. The website is extremely easy to navigate and has an excellent search feature. Users can search by platform, subject, publication type, date of publication, country of publication, and other identifiers. The DOAJ is a good place to browse open access articles without having to worry about whether or not they are trust worthy.