[CoDeP] the Bentham case: be comprehensive

[Marco LiCalzi]

It seems we face a typical type I/ type II error trade-off ( “false alarm” vs “missed alarm”).
There is a twist, however. A single approval (or missed alarm) seems to imply that we implicitly vet the publisher and all its future publications.

I find Jorge’s description (quoted from below) 
" The board clearly has nothing to do with academics from Business or Economics, it is composed of a bunch of physicians that call what they do "business". The journal seems to be legitimate, given those qualifications.”
correct. 

On the other hand, once this journal is approved, then any bunch of [“replace with your favourite category”] can put a journal of RePEc if Bentham agrees. 
No deceptive publishing is involved, but there is a risk of diluting the RePEC archive with lesser matter.

I feel uncomfortable about this potential for Trojan horses, although I understand that it is not our mandate to discuss what should be archived.
Does RePEc has any thought about this? 

Regards, marco.

> On 13 Dec 2016, at 17:01, Jorge Miguel Streb <jms at ucema.edu.ar> wrote:
> 
> Kit, 
> 
> Good point. The implication of having no limits on the scope of the journals goes beyond Bentham: if the publishers can list what they please, RePEc can end up covering all the fields of science. 
> 
> The only thing we can evaluate is Technology Transfer and Entrepreneuship. The board clearly has nothing to do with academics from Business or Economics, it is composed of a bunch of physicians that call what they do "business". The journal seems to be legitimate, given those qualifications. My suggestion is to err on the side of being too comprehensive rather than being too strict, but this is just my opinion. I might not foresee other consequences. 
> 
> Kind regards, 
> 
> Jorge 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> ---------- Original Message ----------- 
> From: Christopher Baum <kit.baum at bc.edu> 
> To: Thomas Krichel <krichel at openlib.org> 
> Cc: Committee on Deceptive Publishing <codep-run at lists.openlib.org> 
> Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:47:07 +0100 
> Subject: Re: [CoDeP] the Bentham case 
> 
> > Jorge, 
> > 
> > Thanks, but please note that this would be a toothless distinction. Once we grant a RePEc archive code, the publisher is free to create as many series within that archive as they choose. We have no way of accepting some series and not others; the only recourse would be to cancel the archive code. So I would respectfully request the committee to consider the publisher in a yes/no fashion: should this publisher be granted a RePEc archive code, to do with as they wish? 
> > 
> > Thanks 
> > Kit Baum 
> > 
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Thomas Krichel <krichel at openlib.org <mailto:krichel at openlib.org>> wrote: 
> >
>   Jorge Miguel Streb writes 
> > 
> > > As Marco points out, this is the only journal related to business in 
> > > the whole Bentham collection. 
> > 
> >   Well there is two brands, "Bentham" and "Bentham Open". I had 
> >   started with Bentham and found this to be the only. I checked the 
> >   journal list of "Bentham Open" right now. They have nothing that 
> >   one would call economics. 
> > 
> >   I suspect that following our investigation, we can recommend Kit to 
> >   tell them they can open an archive for "Technology Transfer and 
> >   Entrepreneurship" (TTE) papers. I doubt RePEc should take other 
> >   journals because of the subject, but that is Kit's decision at 
> >   this time. Let this recommondation goes into force unless we read 
> >   some objects by a committee member within 24 hours, say by 
> >   Wednesday Dec 14 02:00 UTC 2016. 
> > 
> >   Cheers, 
> > 
> >   Thomas Krichel                  http://openlib.org/home/krichel <http://openlib.org/home/krichel> 
> >                                               skype:thomaskrichel 
> >
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > Kit Baum 
> > Professor of Economics and Social Work, Boston College, Chestnut Hill MA, USA 
> > DIW Research Fellow, Department of Macroeconomics, DIW Berlin, Berlin, Germany 
> > baum at bc.edu <mailto:baum at bc.edu>  |  http://ideas.repec.org/e/pba1.html <http://ideas.repec.org/e/pba1.html> 
> ------- End of Original Message ------- 
> _______________________________________________
> CoDeP-run mailing list
> CoDeP-run at lists.openlib.org
> http://lists.openlib.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/codep-run

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openlib.org/pipermail/codep-run/attachments/20161213/c35af9b3/attachment.html>