Re: Hoax Article Accepted by OA Bentham Journal

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:57:25 +0100

OA journals have no monopoly on low peer-review standards: There are
plenty of low-quality and even junk subscription journals (as we have
had occasion to note recently, with El Naschie's "Chaos, Solitons,
Fractals" journal and of course the recent Pharmamercial Scams...

The problem is not with peer review itself, but the rigor with which
it is practised. (Any resemblance to the NRA slogans on guns is
unintended!) And the temptation to make a buck by cutting corners is
there with OA and non-OA journals alike...

Stevan Harnad
On 15-Jun-09, at 6:34 PM, Chen, Xiaotian wrote:

> This story should be more of an OA problem than a peer-review
> problem.
> According to the original LJ story, the journal "claims to
> enforce peer-review."
> The model of author paying for OA publication may have
> contributed to this, while common sense tells us that traditional
> model (customers pay) may work better for quality control.
> Xiaotian Chen
> Bradley U Library
> Peoria, Illinois
Received on Tue Jun 16 2009 - 04:28:06 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:48 GMT