Beall`s paper is provocation but a clever one, as it points to some
critical aspects of golden OA. I would like to emphasize that the three
points summarized by Jeoron Bosman need further discussion and
consideration but would also like to add a fourth (regarding the green
type). There is much
Dear Jean Claude,
As you mention putting Beall's list into responsible hands you might be
interested in this this Dutch initiative, now on trial in The Netherlands and
Austria: http://www.quom.eu . It aims at crowdsourcing OA journal quality
assessment. It uses (multiple) scorecards to assess
Thank you, Graham - all correct, and more clear and concise than I would have
been!
With kind wishes,
Alicia
Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Access and Policy
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E:
Dear all,
currently there is some discussion on elsevier in some scientific
mailing lists, see below for an example and also Randy Schekman in
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
Bye from rainy Berlin,
Katja Mruck
Original-Nachricht
Dear list readers,
Please excuse me: the link in my previous post should read: http://www.qoam.eu
Jeroen
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Bosman, J.M.
Sent: dinsdag 10 december 2013 10:23
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject:
There is a general point: the Elsevier site(s) are riddled with Open Access
inconsistencies. I have discovered at least:
* open access articles behind paywalls
* articles advertised as open access but not labelled anywhere
* (private correspondence) articles paid for as open access but never
At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me
say that whatever ithe failings of his article I thank Jeffrey Beall for
raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed.
I would put them under two general headings:
1) What is
On 7 December 2013 12:56, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:
4. The majority of publishers with Green OA embargoes have an embargo of
one year (though 60%, including Elsevier and Springer, have no embargo at
all).
That's not true - Springer have adopted a 12 month embargo, and
On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by
Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C)
SpringerImages and offered them for resale at 60 USD per image. Just because
OA is only
Sally Morris wrote,
At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me say
that - whatever ithe failings of his article - I thank Jeffrey Beall for
raising
some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed.
I don't know if I'm an OA conformist (and I
Sally,
May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded
heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of pre-publication
peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open repositories. PPPR is the one
thing that keeps the whole publishing system standing, and
On 10 December 2013 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
There is a general point: the Elsevier site(s) are riddled with Open
Access inconsistencies. I have discovered at least:
* open access articles behind paywalls
* articles advertised as open access but not labelled anywhere
I will go one step further:
I believe that all the instances noted by Peter are not simply
oversights; I believe they are part of a kind of benign neglect aimed
at creating as much confusion as possible. The result is that
researchers do not know which way to and, therefore, abstain.
At least,
Many thanks, Jeroen.
I am asking around about ways to take up Beall's list and make it fully
legitimate. It is a very useful list, but Beall's appears to have put
himself in an untenable situation now, either by excess cleverness, or
sheer awkwardness (no to say worse). Simply speaking, he has
On 10 December 2013 13:38, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by
Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C)
SpringerImages and
And now, a few deadpan rejoinders to just the most egregious of
Beallhttp://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514's
howlers:
*ABSTRACT: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about making
scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. The OA
movement
Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view. As
an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts online.
As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk.
Let us burn together, Jan.
Laurent
Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop
Jan, you may well be right. Certainly we will have to give up some of what
we hold dear (pun not intended!) in the old system, if scholarly
communication to cope in future. The losses may be even more drastic - who
knows?
Sally
Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West
In response to Sally, I would remind her that re-use was part of the
original BOAI declaration. Scholars and teachers need more than
eye-contact with articles. So, this is not a secondary point.
The immediacy issue concerns deposit; it is simply a pragmatic and
obvious point: capturing an
CC-BY - they were published through BioMedCentral. Springer labelled all
images that went through their business as (C) SpringerImages. This
included Wikimedia, many third-parties and I even found D*sn*y content.
Wikimedia rightly cared.
No-one in academia cared.
Of course it's copyright
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon
jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:
I will go one step further:
I believe that all the instances noted by Peter are not simply oversights;
I believe they are part of a kind of benign neglect aimed at creating as
much confusion as
Same inkling as Jan Laurent. The way fwd for OAP would be some form of
accreditation by repository publisher. One would need to show what review
quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer review and
demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is what you
zeroPPPR leads to an immediate immense saving of human effort and cost -
the removal of the arbitrary authoring torture-chambers created by
publishers. This has the following benefits:
* authors can choose the means of authoring that their community converges
on. The crystallographers (and I am
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu
wrote:
Same inkling as Jan Laurent. The way fwd for OAP would be some form of
accreditation by repository publisher. One would need to show what review
quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open
Stevan,
I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with more
effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to 100% OA.
They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop thinking and
hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly
Jeroen,
Which list? Already existing or starting a new one, let us know, I'm quite
interested, and probably not the only one.
Cheers
Serge
De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de
Bosman, J.M.
Envoyé : mardi 10 décembre 2013 21:50
À : Global Open Access List
Hi,
The forced retraction of the Séralini paper from an Elsevier journal (an attack
in itself on the integrity of the scientific publication process and a clear
sign that the Pre publication review process is really agonizing) makes me
wonder what happens to a paper that has been retracted
27 matches
Mail list logo
