Open Access Journals: Should We Call them Wikis?

Fraud and deceit creep into every profession from time to time and science is no exception. The title of the article in one of the several blog summaries I get daily by E-mail got my attention: "Editors quit after fake paper flap" and I found myself compelled to click on the link and read on. Here are two excerpts from the publication:

"The editor-in-chief of an open access journal has stepped down from his post after learning that the journal accepted a fake, computer-generated article for publication."

And

"Editors at journal claimed to have peer reviewed the article and slated it for publication pending the submission of $800 in "open access fees."

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55759/

I contacted clients I know have a relationship with this publisher and suggested that we may not be able to use the evidence of their editorial board selection as part of their case. It is not certain the the USCIS or the AAO will see the article, or a similar report, and apply that knowledge to the adjudication of cases, but it is possible and now, after the scandal, they are most likely to discount work on these editorial boards as not probative.

 Research requires credible sourcing. The quality of the source is often more important than the source itself. Wikipedia is a fine example. How does one know the veracity of anything written in an open access Wiki? Wikipedia cannot possibly vet every author and while the theory of self correcting publications is appealing, we have seen what happens when too much reliance is placed on self correcting markets, self policing does not typically work very well. I do use Wikipedia, but not for attribution. I find it is sometimes a fast, free and easy place to start non legal and it usually has useful links that get me to credible material. Recently one hapless attorney cited to Wikipeia and was slapped pretty hard by the judge in the case, a just an proper rebuke.

Are these open access journals the Wikipedia of science publishing or just another vanity press? Neither, they are worse. The publisher's motivation is to publish as many articles as they can so that they are able to collect the greatest fees. No amount of peer review removes the financial incentive to publish as many articles as possible so long as a credible claim can be made that a minimum amount of vetting took place. The quality of the articles will necessarily take back seat to the quantity.

The concept of open access journals is laudable. However the incentive must be to publish quality peer reviewed research and not collect “open access fees.” The way Bentham is running this it is nothing more than a vanity press. The proper way to finance open access publications is through government or non-profit organization funding. Perhaps a consortium of research institutions can bring respectability to the concept.