[CoDeP] Food for thought

[Jorge Miguel Streb]

CoDeP might be just fine, at least it seems easier to pronounce than the
alternatives with Task Force in it. 

Eventually, one could also try out CoMiP, or some other variant like ComMis,
for Committee on Misleading Publishing. 

Jorge

---------- Original Message -----------
From: Thomas Krichel <krichel at openlib.org>
To: "'Christian Zimmermann'" <zimmermann at stlouisfed.org>
Cc: Committee on Deceptive Publishing <codep-run at lists.openlib.org>
Sent: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:34:43 +0000
Subject: Re: [CoDeP] Food for thought

> '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
------- End of Original Message -------