next »

[sciencephd]

My point – which you obviously miss – is that good scholarship is a universally applicable concept. The fact that something does not fit in the forthcoming issue of the journal or that it does suit the audience are issues which are specific to that journal. They are NOT comments related to the overarching concept of good scholarship!

Yes, I understand there is a specific category of journals which are ‘peer-reviewed’ in a narrow, technical sense. My point is that good scholarship can be assured by methods other than peer-review! You do not seem able or willing to accept the possibility that the legitimate evaluation of scholarship can exist aside from peer-review. Sure, this distinction may matter for academics now... but this does not mean it makes eternal sense.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand the significance of the points that I listed regarding the difference between the review of a thesis and a journal article.  

Peer review is the accepted way that scholarship is vetted in academia.

Perhaps I need to remind you that this is an academic forum.  

VDM does not contribute in any meaningful way to scholarship or the evaluation of scholarship, because it bypasses this process entirely, ie there is no editorial process or peer review.

[infopri]

You implied a connection. Clearly I am under no obligation to explain why I joined, but I will nonetheless simply to be clear. As I mentioned above, my main concern was pointing out the obvious difference between a ‘vanity press’ and what VDM does. And that what VDM does is legitimate in its own way, even if it is not technically a peer-reviewing academic publisher. 

No, I simply observed that there is a growing line of people who seem motivated to sign onto the fora for the sole purpose of defending VDM.  I find that curious.  You may have inferred that I meant more, but that does not mean I implied it.

I will grant that VDM is not a vanity press, at least not in quite the way the term is used here in the U.S.  However, I will not grant that the process it uses is in any way comparable to conventional peer review.

Is what VMD does legitimate?  Sure--but let's be honest about what that is.  It publishes dissertations and theses, as is.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I imagine that there are some benefits to this service--but let's not pretend that it's something else.

[sciencephd]

Is what VMD does legitimate?  Sure--but let's be honest about what that is.  It publishes dissertations and theses, as is.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I imagine that there are some benefits to this service--but let's not pretend that it's something else.

Yes, and as such, I think this puts them at almost the level of being a printer rather than a publisher.

[kristoferb]

Who is pretending? If you manage to pass your MA or PhD, one can safely assume there is something worthwhile in your thesis. Unless, of course, you are going to tell me your thesis was all rubbish, containing nothing of value? All VDM does is come in at the end of a very controlled academic process (getting a higher degree) and offer to publish the thesis under the assumption that it isn’t a pile of nonsense. In my view, if you wrote it and it passed, it is probably not rubbish. Journals, on the other hand, are independent agents who receive manuscripts from all over the place with no standardized procedures regulating their drafting. SO, some process must be in place to sort out the rubbish from the not-rubbish so to speak. Hence, we have the peer-review. Let’s not pretend peer-review is a magical, flawless creation saving academia from sub-par ideas.....  

[infopri]

Who is pretending? If you manage to pass your MA or PhD, one can safely assume there is something worthwhile in your thesis. Unless, of course, you are going to tell me your thesis was all rubbish, containing nothing of value? All VDM does is come in at the end of a very controlled academic process (getting a higher degree) and offer to publish the thesis under the assumption that it isn’t a pile of nonsense. In my view, if you wrote it and it passed, it is probably not rubbish. Journals, on the other hand, are independent agents who receive manuscripts from all over the place with no standardized procedures regulating their drafting. SO, some process must be in place to sort out the rubbish from the not-rubbish so to speak. Hence, we have the peer-review. Let’s not pretend peer-review is a magical, flawless creation saving academia from sub-par ideas..... 

You've set up a false dichotomy, that a piece of scholarly writing is either peer-reviewed or rubbish.  The truth, of course, is much more complex.  Yes, some dissertations and theses actually are rubbish.  So are some of the articles that make it through the peer-review process and get published in scholarly journals.  There are also some excellent dissertations and journals that surpass in quality much of what gets peer-reviewed.

None of that makes what VDM does the same thing as a peer review.  And, flawed though the peer-review process may be (and I don't disagree with you about that), it is the accepted process throughout most of academia for judging the suitability of academic work for presentation and/or publication.  VDM's criterion that a piece of scholarly work must simply get through the defense process to be publishable may, as I said, have a place in the world.  But your inability (or unwillingness) to see why this is different from peer review, why the standards for judging dissertations and theses are different from conventional publication standards, why the audience matters, do suggest a certain obliviousness.  You ask who is pretending, even as you pretend that there is no important difference in the two processes.

Look, kristoferb, you don't want to get into an argument with me.  (Or, perhaps more accurately, I have no interest in getting into one with you.)  If you read upthread, you'll see that I'm not one of the people attacking VDM.  I've already granted that VDM serves a legitimate purpose, if a different one from that served by publishers who use peer review.  I simply made an observation about your appearance on the thread, one I stand by.  And, like the other new registrants who have come here to defend VDM, you exhibit a passion out of proportion to the conversation, and certainly out of proportion to my particular observation. 

In any case, I'm off to bed.  Feel free to argue with the others, if you'd like.

[kristoferb]

I refuse to believe there is a substantive difference between the two. The fact that the perception and tradition in academia is otherwise is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. Moreover, at no point did I equate the two so far as perception goes.

The only thing I wanted to make clear to some is that that lacking peer-review does not make a publisher a vanity press.   

[sciencephd]

The only thing I wanted to make clear to some is that that lacking peer-review does not make a publisher a vanity press.   

OK, great.  Of course, it doesn't make them a good publisher, either.

[infopri]

I refuse to believe there is a substantive difference between the two. The fact that the perception and tradition in academia is otherwise is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. Moreover, at no point did I equate the two so far as perception goes.

The only thing I wanted to make clear to some is that that lacking peer-review does not make a publisher a vanity press.   

I already granted that VDM isn't a vanity press, at least not in the conventional sense.  That's why I don't understand your need to argue with me.  The lady (so to speak) doth protest too much, methinks. 

You leave me wondering why you feel so passionate about this, if your only connection is that you know someone who published with VDM.  Why do you care what we think?

[kristoferb]

Excuse me? I responded to those in this thread who stated they are a vanity press – you simply chose to respond to me!

Not a vanity press in the conventional sense? I think you mean at all. A vanity press is one that prints orders for cash with no real intention of ever selling a book to a reader. If they don’t ask you to pay printing costs, they are not a vanity press. Simple as that.

I see no reason for you to question my motivations. Since you seem to have a fondness for literary reference, might I suggest you bone up on the works of Orwell?

[infopri]

I repeat:  Why do you care so much what we think about VDM?

[kristoferb]

I repeat:  Why do you care so much what we think about VDM?

Why do you care why I care?

[sciencephd]

I repeat:  Why do you care so much what we think about VDM?

Why do you care why I care?

Because at this point we think you are a troll that is pimping for VDM.

[kristoferb]

You implied a connection. Clearly I am under no obligation to explain why I joined, but I will nonetheless simply to be clear. As I mentioned above, my main concern was pointing out the obvious difference between a ‘vanity press’ and what VDM does. And that what VDM does is legitimate in its own way, even if it is not technically a peer-reviewing academic publisher. 

No, I simply observed that there is a growing line of people who seem motivated to sign onto the fora for the sole purpose of defending VDM.  I find that curious.  You may have inferred that I meant more, but that does not mean I implied it.

Hmmm.... Seems to me that I have addressed this issue already. (And frankly, I haven’t got to answer to either of you.)

[infopri]

Stop being childish.

I repeat:  Why do you care so much what we think about VDM?

Why do you care why I care?

Yes, that is certainly the adult response.

You implied a connection. Clearly I am under no obligation to explain why I joined, but I will nonetheless simply to be clear. As I mentioned above, my main concern was pointing out the obvious difference between a ‘vanity press’ and what VDM does. And that what VDM does is legitimate in its own way, even if it is not technically a peer-reviewing academic publisher. 

No, I simply observed that there is a growing line of people who seem motivated to sign onto the fora for the sole purpose of defending VDM.  I find that curious.  You may have inferred that I meant more, but that does not mean I implied it.

Hmmm.... Seems to me that I have addressed this issue already. (And frankly, I haven’t got to answer to either of you.)

Yes, that inspires confidence and trust. 

You said that your only interest is, in fact, that you happen to know someone who published with VDM.  As I said above, your passion is way out of proportion to that limited a connection.

Frankly, I do hope that you and the others I referred to who register merely to defend VDM are not affiliated with VDM.  I started with some respect for what VDM does, as long as it's not misrepresented, but your posts and those of the others are actually jeopardizing even that and doing a real disservice to VDM.

[sciencephd]

This thread is #2 in a google search for verlag dr mueller.  No wonder they're posting here.