4 ms·

One idea I've been toying with is to not cite papers submitted to rip-off journals such as this in order to encourage people to submit to more reasonable venues

One idea I've been toying with is to not cite papers submitted to rip-off journals such as this in order to encourage people to submit to more reasonable venues. The downsides I see are that (i) you might get rejected for ignoring previous work, and (ii) it's a bit unfair on researchers who submitted to those venues before many other options were available. As a potential solution, you could only cite papers submitted to those journals before some cut-off date. The cut-off date could be in the near future, and could be advertised in advance as part of a campaign to get other researchers to do the same thing.

dredmorbius 11y ago
That's already happening, somewhat, notably on Wikipedia, where the increased availability of public-access journals means that papers published in them are more likely to be cited. This tends to drive a virtuous cycle of more citations in Wikipedia => more references to public-access journals. Enough that Elsevier are attempting to counter this via offering a (very limited) set of free accounts to Wikipedia editors to its own journals. Previously discussed on HN. Ultimately, I suspect we'll see a dynamic emerge by which pressures against for-profit publication and increased alternatives will hit a tipping point. I first started hearing about the public-access publishing world in the late 1990s. A decade and a half later, it's a thing, though still small. And figuring out how to compensate both research and editorialship remains a challenge.
hugh4 11y ago
It's not okay to not cite something, if it's relevant, regardless of where it's published. But people who feel strongly about open access are free to publish there themselves. Most academics don't care that much, because they tend to assume anyone worthy of reading their paper is someone with an affiliation to a university that has a subscription.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  While there are merits to that, there are two roles to a citation. One is to reference clearly foundational work. Here, you've got a limited set of choices, but also, directly consequent, the total number of works is small. The key here is to ensure that they're made publicly available -- SciLib, LibGen, etc. I've found myself frustrated by researchers who don't cite key foundational works -- case in point is Fischer-Tropsch based fuel synthesis from electricity. I'd run across several studies from the US Naval Research Lab none of which cited research prior to the mid 1990s. Turns out the field is actually over 50 years old, with early work at Brookhaven National Labs -- not some sketchy fly-by-night. The lack of citations here was egregious. The other purpose, and far more common, is simply to show documentation of established claims or facts in a field. Here, virtually any credible source will do, and it's for this type of citation that open-access pubs can and should be strongly favoured.
micwawa 11y ago
I've had versions of this thought. A less punishy way of doing this is fill up the references with a few extra references to the journals you prefer. Over time, the metrics and citations will drift upwards, and this could lead these journals achieving some critical mass.

dredmorbius 11y ago

That's already happening, somewhat, notably on Wikipedia, where the increased availability of public-access journals means that papers published in them are more likely to be cited. This tends to drive a virtuous cycle of more citations in Wikipedia => more references to public-access journals. Enough that Elsevier are attempting to counter this via offering a (very limited) set of free accounts to Wikipedia editors to its own journals. Previously discussed on HN. Ultimately, I suspect we'll see a dynamic emerge by which pressures against for-profit publication and increased alternatives will hit a tipping point. I first started hearing about the public-access publishing world in the late 1990s. A decade and a half later, it's a thing, though still small. And figuring out how to compensate both research and editorialship remains a challenge.

hugh4 11y ago

It's not okay to not cite something, if it's relevant, regardless of where it's published. But people who feel strongly about open access are free to publish there themselves. Most academics don't care that much, because they tend to assume anyone worthy of reading their paper is someone with an affiliation to a university that has a subscription.

dredmorbius 11y ago
While there are merits to that, there are two roles to a citation. One is to reference clearly foundational work. Here, you've got a limited set of choices, but also, directly consequent, the total number of works is small. The key here is to ensure that they're made publicly available -- SciLib, LibGen, etc. I've found myself frustrated by researchers who don't cite key foundational works -- case in point is Fischer-Tropsch based fuel synthesis from electricity. I'd run across several studies from the US Naval Research Lab none of which cited research prior to the mid 1990s. Turns out the field is actually over 50 years old, with early work at Brookhaven National Labs -- not some sketchy fly-by-night. The lack of citations here was egregious. The other purpose, and far more common, is simply to show documentation of established claims or facts in a field. Here, virtually any credible source will do, and it's for this type of citation that open-access pubs can and should be strongly favoured.

micwawa 11y ago

I've had versions of this thought. A less punishy way of doing this is fill up the references with a few extra references to the journals you prefer. Over time, the metrics and citations will drift upwards, and this could lead these journals achieving some critical mass.