On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Beall, Jeffrey <[email protected]>wrote:
> I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely > this statement, "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot." > > This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote > it in the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in the > article, and I have never written such a statement. > No, you wrote the following (and more), for which that was a mercifully short synopsis (in scare quotes): "*The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with…."* Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts. > [!] *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* maandag 9 december 2013 16:04 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of > Beall's List > > > > Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open > Access <http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514>. > TripleC Communication, Capitalism & Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597 > http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514 > > > > This wacky article is going to be fun to review. I still think Jeff Beall > is doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA journals, > but I now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful conspiracy > theory! "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot." (Even on a quick skim it is > evident that Jeff's article is rife with half-truths, errors and downright > nonsense. Pity. It will diminish the credibility of his valid exposés, but > maybe this is a good thing, if the judgment and motivation behind Beall's > list is as kooky as this article! But alas it will now also give the > genuine "predatory" junk-journals some specious arguments for discrediting > Jeff's work altogether. Of course it will also give the publishing lobby > some good sound-bites, but they use them at their peril, because of all the > other nonsense in which they are nested!) > > > > Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set > the stage: > > > > *JB: **"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 is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to > deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement > is also actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that > restrict individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders > sacrifice the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing > countries, pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access > journals. The open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous > predatory publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of > research misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of > pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science."* > > > > *JB: **"[F]rom their high-salaried comfortable positions…OA advocates... > demand that for-profit, scholarly journal publishers not be involved in > scholarly publishing and devise ways (such as green open-access) to defeat > and eliminate them...* > > > > *JB: **"OA advocates use specious arguments to lobby for mandates, > focusing only on the supposed economic benefits of open access and ignoring > the value additions provided by professional publishers. The arguments > imply that publishers are not really needed; all researchers need to do is > upload their work, an action that constitutes publishing, and that this act > results in a product that is somehow similar to the products that > professional publishers produce…. * > > > > *JB: **"The open-access movement isn't really about open access. > Instead, it is about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of > the press from those who prefer the subscription model of scholarly > publishing. It is an anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, > one that uses young researchers and researchers from developing countries > as pawns to artificially force the make-believe gold and green open-access > models to work. The movement relies on unnatural mandates that take free > choice away from individual researchers, mandates set and enforced by an > onerous cadre of Soros-funded European autocrats...* > > > > *JB: **"The open-access movement is a failed social movement and a false > messiah, but its promoters refuse to admit this. The emergence of numerous > predatory publishers – a product of the open-access movement – has poisoned > scholarly communication, fostering research misconduct and the publishing > of pseudo-science, but OA advocates refuse to recognize the growing > problem. By instituting a policy of exchanging funds between researchers > and publishers, the movement has fostered corruption on a grand scale. > Instead of arguing for openaccess, we must determine and settle on the best > model for the distribution of scholarly research, and it's clear that > neither green nor gold open-access is that model...* > > > > And then, my own personal favourites: > > > > *JB: **"Open access advocates think they know better than everyone else > and want to impose their policies on others. Thus, the open access movement > has the serious side-effect of taking away other's freedom from them. We > observe this tendency in institutional mandates. Harnad (2013) goes so far > as to propose [an]…Orwellian system of mandates… documented [in a] table of > mandate strength, with the most restrictive pegged at level 12, with the > designation "immediate deposit + performance evaluation (no waiver > option)". This Orwellian system of mandates is documented in Table 1... * > > > > *JB: **"A social movement that needs mandates to work is doomed to fail. > A social movement that uses mandates is abusive and tantamount to academic > slavery. Researchers need more freedom in their decisions not less. How can > we expect and demand academic freedom from our universities when we impose > oppressive mandates upon ourselves?..."* > > > > Stay tuned!… > > > > *Stevan Harnad* > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
