As was explained in a statement on the OASPA blog in April 2014 (https://oaspa.org/statement-regarding-the-suspension-of-springers-membership-in-oaspa/), OASPA’s Membership Committee made the decision to place Springer’s membership under review as a result of concerns that were raised regarding the peer review policies of several of its conference proceedings. The concerns arose because of the publication of 16 (since increased to 18) gibberish articles generated by the computer program SCIGen, despite these publications being described as peer reviewed.
Springer have responded to several inquiries from OASPA about actions that are being taken to bolster peer review processes at the conference proceedings publications, and have also issued a number of informative and constructive public statements. The Membership Committee’s view is that Springer have taken appropriate steps to strengthen their peer review processes, and we are delighted to reinstate Springer as a full member of OASPA with immediate effect.
During this investigation, the OASPA Board has discussed whether it is appropriate for OASPA to place a member under review in cases where there are concerns relating to products that are not themselves open access. The Board’s view is that evidence of systematic weaknesses in publishing processes that compromise the integrity of scholarship are relevant to the organisation as a whole. OASPA will therefore continue to investigate evidence of significant weaknesses if we judge that the evidence could be seen to reflect on open-access publishing operations. Wherever possible, OASPA will also offer to assist members in taking the appropriate steps to correct any problems that may arise.
The final statement from Springer regarding the publication of these SCIGen manuscripts is available at http://www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/statements/springer-final-scigen-report/32052
*** Full Criteria Applied for Reinstating Springer’s Membership? ***
Membership at OASPA is granted based among other criteria especially on the 16 “Principles of Transparency” https://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing . From the post above, it seems that Springer’s membership was only checked with respect to the peer review process. This view is supported further:
Take e.g. this principle:
“4. Author fees: Any fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials in the journal shall be clearly stated in a place that is easy for potential authors to find …”
and compare e.g. with this journal:
http://www.springer.com/engineering/civil+engineering/journal/12544
Author fees are not mentioned on that page. Even if it should turn out in the end that there are no fees, it is still necessary that a statement is made on the journal page (and not only somewhere on Springer’s many web pages).
So, how can it be that reinstating a member is only partially looking at OASPA’s membership criteria?
*** What We Learn from Springer’s Final Report on SCIgen – Generated Papers ***
Springer published the report on 14 August 2014. It contains much truth. Interesting (at least for me) to compare it with my blog post https://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing/#comment-5237 written on 13 January 2014, i.e. 7 month earlier. Very similar!
=> Hoax Manuscripts are Not the Way Forward to Test Publishers! <= Springer: „Similar to those individuals that write and disseminate computer viruses and malware, there will always be individuals, or groups of individuals working in collusion, who try to undermine existing processes in order to prove a point or to enrich themselves directly or indirectly.“ Scholz: „Hoax manuscripts are in any case malicious in nature and remind me of hacking which can be good or bad but in any case ethically problematic.“ Remark: John Bohannon submitted 304 fake scientific papers in preparation for his article http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60. This is a famous case of a highly problematic ethical behavior! To use Springer’s words: Bohannon is one of the „individuals ... who try to undermine existing processes in order to prove a point“. Furthermore, Bohannon (or any other individual with a similar motive) may not proof his point because of the „exclusionary rule ... designed to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant's ... rights.“ (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Exclusionary+Rule) => Not Absolute but Relative Numbers of Hoax Papers would be a Measure! <= Springer: „... it should not be forgotten that only 18 out of more than eight million documents that Springer has published were produced by the SCIgen computer program.“ Scholz: „...it is a matter of probability. One hoax manuscript that passed is very, very bad, but it is not the end of publishing. You would need to have measures like ‚stings passed per number of papers published’- but stings would need to be received in sufficient high numbers or it will statistically not be relevant.“ Remark: Obviously, we do not want “stings in high numbers”. For this reason, stings are not helpful to check on ’ review processes. => The Publisher can not be Blamed for Passed Hoax Papers, if Publication Processes are Sound <= Springer: „Springer’s quality control for conference proceedings was compromised by trusting sloppy or fraudulent conference partners“ Scholz: „Publishers are blamed if a hoax manuscript passes, but it is not the publisher that passed it. Assuming the publisher puts ... a legitimate ... editorial board in place ... free to [use e]ditorial ... independence. How can the publisher be blamed for the hoax that got passed?“ Remark: It is the task of the publisher to take care when putting an EiC in charge. The publisher has to watch the performance of the EiC and the EB. „Springer will increase its efforts to monitor suspicious and fictitious conferences“. It is not the task of the publisher to read the submitted manuscripts. However, it is already today the task of the publisher to set up an infrastructure to check manuscripts for plagiarism and it is now also the task of the publisher to set up an infrastructure to filter out automatically generated nonsense papers. => Detection Software Open Access and Not as Business Advantage =>
Springer:
“Springer colleagues from a number of departments worked closely with Dr. Labbé to implement his detection software”
“We are also pleased to announce that we are in the final stages of formalizing our relationship with Dr. Labbé, who, with a Springer-funded PhD student and associated team, will work intensively with Springer on detection mechanisms for any future programs that are similar to SCIgen.”
Scholz:
“Hoax manuscripts produced automatically / randomly will sooner or later be resisted automatically by ‚editorial fire walls’.“
Remark:
SCIgen detection website (Dr. Labbé): http://scigendetection.imag.fr
Inauthentic Paper Detector: http://montana.informatics.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/fsi/fsi.cgi
Let’s see, if Springer will make its funded detection research and tools Open Access!