3 ms·
The problem with gold OA is the proliferation of low-quality spam, and the recommended remedy is to both restore exclusivity (raise the barrier to entry) withou
by jpeloquin 2y ago
The problem with gold OA is the proliferation of low-quality spam, and the recommended remedy is to both restore exclusivity (raise the barrier to entry) without supporting excessive (monopolistic, exploitative) journal subscription fees. The article's recommendation to build up society journals has a decent chance of accomplishing this. It won't prevent spam from getting published, but the only essential aspect is to keep the spam easily identifiable (e.g., published by MDPI) so it can be safely ignored. The www seems to facilitate the spam business model so I don't think the spam will go away entirely.
- throwaway14356 2y agoAssuming you want to get rid of the fees entirely: people will have to look at the spam and divide it into more and less spammy. Others will have to do the same with the less spammy and so on. Eventually there is room for more accomplished moderators Until those with the greatest prestige filter down to a tiny sub set. You assign weights to the experts so that with each level of review the good half raises in rank much more than the previous round. At first you do it by committee but eventually the rating for each scientists can be derived from the importance of their publication(s). I don't think it needs to be free or even cheap. Subscriptions to the archives (and research data) could be more expensive and the money can be divided over the reputation points. Free access can be earned by the sweat of your brow, publish worthy papers and do reviews that closely match other reviewers. Universities should be able to publish enough quality material to get paid. Have the grownups pay for juniors education again. It was a good idea back then it is a good idea now.