MEDLIB-L Archives

June 2018, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"King, Fred" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
King, Fred
Thu, 7 Jun 2018 12:25:04 -0400
text/plain (81 lines)
I like that criterion! I'll have to add it to my as-yet-unwritten checklist

Back in 1995 I worked for a contractor on an ADA project. Perhaps since I was hired for my computer geek skills, the company asked me to take a look at one of their proposals for a new project to get my opinion on the section listing their computer capacity. 

I suggested that they remove the bit where they bragged about having software that could emulate a VT100.

Fred King
Medical Librarian, MedStar Washington Hospital Center
[log in to unmask]
ORCID 0000-0001-5266-0279
MedStar Authors Catalog:

I still feel thirty, except when I try to run.
--Bob Newhart

-----Original Message-----
From: Medical Libraries Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Catherine Arnott SMITH
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 12:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: the journal Medical Research Archives

No experience with MRA but my personal favorite criterion for sussing out a journal's ethics and overall behavior is their statement about indexing/abstracting. MRA sez:

"The Medical Research Archives indexes in Crossref and Google Scholar."

Crossref is no kind of quality filter; all you have to do to be "indexed by" Crossref is purchase a DOI.

Google Scholar ditto with no purchase required. My recent study of "predatory" content in databases and repositories, presented at MLA 2018, found that 62% of the articles published in health sciences-specific journals present on Beall's List were found in Google Scholar. This does not mean that Google Scholar does not have any quality material. It just means that a close look at the journal and publisher is required.

Gwen, regarding your general policy -- simply charging fees does not say anything about the quality of the OA journal or publisher. The journal that bobbles between #1 and #2 in biomedical informatics, which has been covered by Journal Citation Reports for some years, peer-reviewed and open access from the beginning but originally free, charges me $2500 to publish and $90 just to submit a ms. for consideration. Many conversations with my academic collaborators begin: "How are we going to pay for this?:

And have you looked at Biomed Central lately?

Catherine Arnott Smith, PhD
Associate Professor
University of Wisconsin-Madison iSchool
Discovery Fellow, Virtual Environments Group
Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery
University of Wisconsin-Madison

“Form is never more than an extension of content.” [Charles Olson quoting Robert Creely; Projective Verse, 1950].

-----Original Message-----
From: Medical Libraries Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Sprague, Gwen E
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 10:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [MEDLIB-L] the journal Medical Research Archives

A couple of my faculty have been approached but this journal wanting to publish a project of theirs. Does anyone have any experience with them or their publisher, KEI Journals?

Medical Research Archives

My general policy is to not recommend any journal that is charging you fees to publish. 


If I can be of further assistance please ask.

Clinical Medical Librarian, Medical-Dental Library
TMC Lakewood
(816) 404-8265 | [log in to unmask]

The information contained in this communication may be confidential and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete any copy of it from your computer system.