[CoDeP] Food for thought

[Thomas Krichel]

  'Christian Zimmermann' writes

> See http://retractionwatch.com/2016/10/27/even-top-economists-publish-in-predatory-journals-study-finds/
> and http://www.env-econ.net/2016/10/even-top-economists-publish-in-predatory-journals-study-finds-repec.html
> 
> Note especially the comments for the first one.

  Well, the comments basically say what I am trying to get through
  here. We can't run an operation like Jeff. (BTW I met him in June at
  a meeting. I stayed polite.) What this guy does is he runs a list,
  and he places journals on and off the list as he sees fit. And some
  people here seem to think that we can can do the same thing, just
  publish a list of journals we think are falling short of a
  standard. Yes we can do the same. But we don't want to do this for
  its fun value. We want to do it because it is useful to RePEc. Thus
  our decisions have to be intergated into RePEc's work. This is where
  things require some thought. And that's one of the reasons I have
  not made much progress with a constitution. I am also frustrated by
  our lack of understanding and a lack of a name.

  If people like COPS, it's ok with me as long as we have an actual
  standard. Thus I invite volunteers to come forward to promise to
  write and maintain a standard. I will not do it. If we don't have
  such a volunteer the COPS idea is off the table. We can't have a
  COPS without a standard otherwise we risk somebody creating a
  committee on deceptive RePEc committees.

  The next contenders would Task Force on Deceptive Publishing
  (TaFDeP) or Task Force on Misleading Publishing (TaFMiP).  Or
  something else that somebody may still propose. But it can't have a
  "standard" in it, and please no "predatory" for all the reasons you
  can find in the comments.


-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel                  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                                              skype:thomaskrichel