[CoDeP] Food for thought

[BOUNADER Lahcen]

I want to react about what Thomas just said, ''Well, the comments basically
say what I am trying to get through
  here. We can't run an operation....''
I believe that what it matters the most is not only the NAME of the
committee, it is more important to think about some real actions in order
to find a way how to determine 'predatory' journals.


2016-11-03 21:34 GMT+00:00 Thomas Krichel <krichel at openlib.org>:

>   '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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CoDeP-run mailing list
> CoDeP-run at lists.openlib.org
> http://lists.openlib.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/codep-run
>



-- 
Bounader Lahcen
Economic Research
Economic Department, MED V-Agdal.
Rabat, Morocco.
*https://ideas.repec.org/f/pbo895.html
<https://ideas.repec.org/f/pbo895.html>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openlib.org/pipermail/codep-run/attachments/20161103/bb9dba3f/attachment.html>