对于John Bohannon在Science上发表"Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?"，对OA期刊的质量所进行的质疑（科学网也有报道，开放存储期刊的论文质量值得怀疑），DOAJ给出了官方的回应，表示DOAJ一直致力于收录高质量的OA期刊，目前已经成为了高质量OA期刊的聚集地。DOAJ也意识到，目前确实有不少低劣的OA出版机构，DOAJ也在采取更加严格的措施，保证所收录期刊的质量。

    此外，DOAJ还是针对Bohannon的数据，对接受其造假论文的期刊进行调查，并会将详细调查结果予以公布。比较有趣的是，Bohannon在其论文中最后还用了DOAJ创始人的“原话”。DOAJ指出来，这是被编辑后的意思，是“misleading”和“alter”的，并且把原始邮件给贴了出来。

   其实，OA期刊跟传统期刊一样，有好的，也有差的。国内有无数传统期刊是垃圾期刊，是只要给钱就能发的期刊，大家也不会因为这样多的垃圾期刊而全盘否定传统期刊。同样，对于OA期刊，不能因为有差的OA期刊就全盘否定，也不能因为有好的OA期刊就全盘肯定。我想这个道理大家都是懂的。

   原文：

DOAJ'sresponse to the recent article in Science entitled “Who’s Afraid of PeerReview?” 2013-10-04

Below is a statementfrom the Directory of Open Access Journals in response to the recent"sting" that was reported in Science in an article entitled "Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?" by John Bohannon.

DOAJ was establishedin 2003 to highlight the importance, quality and growing prevalence of OpenAccess journals. For 10 years, DOAJ has been at the heart of quality openaccess journals, increasing visibility of open access content and encouragingbest practices amongst open access publishers. Today there are 9948 journals inDOAJ, every one of them manually reviewed and vetted before being allowed to belisted. Every journal is checked against a number of selection criteria.

In recent times, theneed for even more rigorous and careful selection criteria has become apparent.The number of journal suggestions from bogus publishers, or for journals thatdo not adhere to strict publishing standards, has increased dramatically.Indeed, the exercise conducted by Bohannon provides some useful data about thescale of, and the problems associated with, this group of low-qualitypublishers. Proactively, DOAJ has been working on new criteria for the bestpart of this year. The revised criteria will deter low-quality publishers fromsuggesting journals in the first place and will reveal those who fail to stepup to the mark within the grace period. As far back as June 2013, DOAJ opened up the first draft of the revised for criteria for publicconsultation. A response to the consultation period was then published in September along with a second revision of the criteria.All the documents have been, and remain, publicly available under these twolinks.

We intend to publisha full and detailed response to the article as soon as we have had a chance toreview all of the data. This will include details on what actions we will taketoward those journals who have accepted the fake paper for publication.However, there is one urgent clarification and correction that we would like tomake now. In the results section of the article, DOAJ Managing Director, LarsBjørnshauge, is quoted thus:

'A bigger surprise isthat for DOAJ publishers that completed the review process, 45% accepted thebogus paper. "I find it hard to believe," says Bjørnshauge, the DOAJfounder. "We have been working with the community to draft new tightercriteria for inclusion." '

This rather rashpiece of editing [paraphrasing] is misleading and alters the original sense ofthe email from Lars to Mr Bohannon which, for the record, we reproduce here.The unedited and full text reads:

/starts/
'I find it hard to believe that you got 64 out of 168 papers accepted just likethat in the first go!
Since we took over DOAJ we have been working with the community to draft newtighter criteria for inclusion -http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=news&nId=311&uiLanguage=en - allinformation provided by publishers to be publicly available and the communitywill be watchdog.
FYI: During the last 50 days more journals have been removed than added to theDOAJ.'
/ends/

Finally, DOAJ fullysupports the statement issued by OASPA earlier today which highlights whatcan and cannot be concluded from the article. It is important to remember thatthe conclusions drawn by the article only cover a small percentage of openaccess journals and cannot be applied to the wider open access community.

网址：http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=news&nId=315&uiLanguage=en