The community of practice ‘predatory publishing’ came together to write this blog post, providing insight into what we do and subsequent discussions, but by no means representing a general opinion or coming to a final conclusion. This post provides a shared perspective based on our experience working in the Austrian library system. Some of the passages are written in a deliberately more pointed and provocative manner to serve as a starting point to reflect and engage in discussion. We look forward to your feedback, be it positive or more critical.

As one of the few “third spaces” (alongside the office and the home), the public library continues to be a central learning and working environment, free of the pressure to consume anything or perform. Libraries try to offer their visitors a comfortable atmosphere. Long-standing, standard features include a welcoming space, plenty of room, a variety of work areas, a reliable power source and internet connection, good lighting and climatic comfort. The library itself has increasingly become a place to meet up, a place to spend time and hang out, communicate, interact, share ideas, and work. Is it still a “place of knowledge”, though? We see fewer and fewer shelves full of books and journal volumes in the reading rooms and study areas, and even if there are some, they seem to, more or less, serve as a décor rather than as reference material. Most of the available literature and reference materials are digitally accessible. In some places, the use of electronic resources has overtaken that of physical collections, a trend supported by a steadily declining number of book loans.

When you walk through a business library today, you feel like you’re in a furniture store that is trying to create a homely and intellectual atmosphere with fake books in its model living rooms. It is true that all the books in the library are real, but what use the shelves have beyond the facade is an open question. ¹

Over the past few decades, libraries have adapted their user services accordingly in areas such as information literacy, which covers digital skills in a broader sense. The primary focus is on teaching and honing skills in search techniques, how to use electronic resources and the respective platforms, managing literature, critically analyzing sources, information, and data. Libraries, on the other hand, by acquiring and expanding on their electronic collections, become important points of contact, as well as negotiating and business partners to publishers and providers, placing themselves in a unique and invaluable position to drive the Open Access movement forward.

Over the past 15 to 20 years, libraries have created new open access and open science services. Researchers who used to only use the available reference materials are now being targeted as a stakeholder group, resulting in new future-oriented fields of activity at libraries, such as “research support services”. As a result, libraries are responding to recent developments in academia by providing new, targeted and needs-based support services such as publication services, repositories, bibliometrics departments, and research data management services. However, libraries with less resources and employees often struggle to keep pace with larger institutions, trying to meet the purported demands of their university’s users, seeing as these services now seem to be part of today’s standard library portfolio. In the past 10 years, predatory publishing has emerged as one such development in academic and scholarly communication, and libraries have identified a need and a new field of action for themselves.

A signal is not a trend. A trend is not a future. A future is not THE future. ²

The demand-driven service approach seems to create the impression that new services are being added one after the other, often at the expense of more traditional library operations. Trends – and their relevance and impact on library services – are being anticipated with seemingly little regard for the fact that “a signal is not a trend, a trend is not a future and a future is not THE future”. Efforts to continuously expand the range of library services and adjust them based on demand and specific circumstances is unsustainable as both agility and resilience are limited and resources are finite. We need to pause for a moment and ask ourselves the fundamental question of what a library’s role – is as well as the role of librarians in this field is. Open access and open science along with developments in the areas of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication have challenged libraries to re-define their role and how they perceive themselves. Our project, ‘Predatory Publishing’ as part of AT2OA2, explores these very questions. What exactly is our role as a library? Why are we engaging in topics such as predatory publishing? What do we want to achieve, who do we want to appeal to, and how can we accomplish our goals?

To date, scientific libraries have only focused on academic/scientific literature following publication. The libraries’ neutrality and their activities, not evaluating scholarly publications in terms of content and quality, are inseparably intertwined in this context. When it comes to accessing scientific literature, the role of libraries as mediators and moderators could be described as advocacy, which was particularly important when negotiating with publishers about costs, or access terms and conditions, as well as teaching basic skills and abilities regarding information literacy. The focus of librarianship has evolved over the years, moving from caring for the scholarly record to caring for the scholarly commons, as libraries and research services are now becoming increasingly involved in the full lifecycle of scholarly communication to varying degrees, dependent on the resources and capabilities available to that particular university. It starts with research data management and ends in disseminating scientific findings. When you care deeply about something, inevitably the question about responsibility follows. Because we librarians are deeply involved in creating, developing and supporting open access, for example, we arguably also have a responsibility to exercise due diligence.

So, what does this mean in terms of predatory publishing? These practices are often referred to as the downside of open access, but this falls somewhat short. A deeper look into the subject quickly reveals some aspects of good scientific practice and publication ethics. Libraries are faced with the basic question as to whether this ethical dimension is not more a matter for scientific communities and academia, and whether libraries should restrict their role to that of an information provider and administrator. To what extent can – and should – libraries play an advocacy role in this respect? What about the much-cited role of being neutral? Just recently, there was an interesting discussion on the American scholcom-list about libraries’ and repository managers’ role when dealing with articles published in predatory journals. Should they stay neutral and post the articles in the repository, or should they be more active and reject the articles? Rather than one definitive answer, two conflicting viewpoints emerged, each with sound arguments presented by both sides, demonstrating that the process of taking a stance and determining where one stands is still ongoing. The same goes for the question as to how to approach assessing and offering support services to what could potentially turn out to be a predatory journal. There is an obvious demand for clarity and direction in a murky situation, as it is of utmost importance to the researcher’s professional credibility and career. Yet those involved in dealing with predatory practices understand this is rarely possible.

In this regard, what are our aspirations as librarians now? What kinds of values and principles do we follow? We are not part of the scholarly publishing practices nor part of the scientific/academic community. Based on the above, in the interests of maintaining a neutral approach to library operations, we should not intervene or issue instructions on what to do or how to act. Although there is no German translation for the phrase ‘informed decision’, it is a very helpful description of what we do, especially with regard to safeguarding the scholarly commons so that researchers can continue making well-informed decisions when it comes to publishing their findings. Part of this involves sharing information and knowledge continuously, not only about predatory practices but also about the shifts and evolutions in scholarly communication. Providing information about potentially fraudulent journals, critically evaluating these types of journals, followed by reporting the findings to reveal the many facets, facilitate making a well-informed decision, and have proven to be essential elements at the heart of this practice. Last but not least, we need dialogue and interaction with the scientific community – or rather scientific communities – in the form of outreach programs and facilitation to learn about and understand the different practices, so we can develop a joint, sustainable practice of care for the scholarly commons. When it comes to academic communications, librarians still often find themselves in uncharted territory. Two practicing, professional communities – libraries and researchers – work alongside each other, but also increasingly find themselves working with each other. Our approach and, above all, ongoing dialog, can give rise to something novel: a new community of practice between academia and libraries designed to uphold the basic principles of library activities of facilitating, providing, and advocating, while simultaneously continuing a tradition in which libraries are a place where this holds true:

What harbor can receive you more securely than a great library? ³

References

[1] Igel, L.: Zukunft ohne Buch (2023): https://www.faz.net/-gyl-b9oov (retrieved on 06/18/2024) ↑

[2] Kleske, J.: Seedlings | Blog (2021): https://notes.johanneskleske.com/a-regular-reminder/: (retrieved on 06/18/2024) ↑

[3] Calvino, I.: Wenn ein Reisender in einer Winternacht (1979) ↑