Author-pays business model – the Achilles Heel of the OA movement?

Open Access kommt aufgrund von verdeckt (oder nicht transparent) operierenden Start-up-Unternehmen, die es mit Peer-Review und Editorschaft* nicht so ernst meinen, immer mehr unter Beschuß, wie Richard Poynder am Fall von Amy Bishop demonstriert.
* Ein Augenarzt, der nicht auf Emails antwortet, ist Chefeditor von alleine 9(!) der Open Access Journale von Dove Medical Press.

What are OASPA’s (Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association) views on the incident? In the hope of finding out I emailed a list of questions to the organisation. Amongst other things, I asked whether OASPA was concerned that three teenage children had been cited as co-authors of a peer-reviewed paper published by one of its members, whether it felt that having one person act as Editor-in-Chief of nine Dove journals might not be excessive, and whether it was desirable that the International Journal of General Medicine should have only an honorary editorial board. […] Unfortunately, OASPA’s reply suggests that OA publishers remain dangerously oblivious to the credibility gap yawning in front of them.

Dove Medical Press ein zweiter Fall Bentham ? (Wenn es denn so wäre, müßten wir bald alle aufdringliche FreeTrial-Angebote von Dove kriegen …)

Peter Suber, de facto leader of the OA movement, is also uncomfortable with the lack of transparency over the ownership of some OA publishers. In fact, he told me, he had been under the impression that transparency of ownership was a pre-condition for membership of OASPA. „At least I am deeply suspicious of publishers who are unwilling to disclose their owners,“ he told me. „We need that kind of transparency to be able to investigate whether the owners have financial interests, e.g. with pharma companies, that might compromise the integrity of their journals.“