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 expensive – in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those. Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status, however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more examples.
My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too easily used as an excuse to absolve scientists – and science journalists – from applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal. Doing away with PPPR will do little damage – if any at all – to science, but removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific community a hell of a lot of money. The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn for that phrase), so I won't hold my breath. Jan Velterop On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris <[email protected]> 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 would put them under two general headings: > > 1) What is the objective of OA? > > I originally understood the objective to be to make scholarly research > articles, in some form, accessible to all those who needed to read them. > Subsequent refinements such as 'immediately', 'published version' and 'free > to reuse' may have acquired quasi-religious status, but are surely secondary > to this main objective. > > However, two other, financial, objectives (linked to each other, but not to > the above) have gained increasing prominence. The first is the alleged cost > saving (or at least cost shifting). The second - more malicious, and > originally (but no longer) denied by OA's main proponents - is the > undermining of publishers' businesses. If this were to work, we may be sure > the effects would not be choosy about 'nice' or 'nasty' publishers. > > 2) Why hasn't OA been widely adopted by now? > > If – as we have been repetitively assured over many years – OA is > self-evidently the right thing for scholars to do, why have so few of them > done so voluntarily? As Jeffrey Beall points out, it seems very curious that > scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to adopt a model which is supposedly > preferable to the existing one. > > Could it be that the monotonous rantings of the few and the tiresome debates > about the fine detail are actually confusing scholars, and may even be > putting them off? Just asking ;-) > > I don't disagree that the subscription model is not going to be able to > address the problems we face in making the growing volume of research > available to those who need it; but I'm not convinced that OA (whether > Green, Gold or any combination) will either. I think the solution, if there > is one, still eludes us. > > Merry Christmas! > > Sally > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: [email protected] > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > David Prosser > Sent: 09 December 2013 22:10 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility > ofBeall's List > > 'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody. > > David > > > > On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey wrote: > >> Wouter, >> Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility >> for it. >> 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. >> Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts. >> Jeffrey Beall >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Gerritsma, Wouter >> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:14 PM >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of >> Beall's List >> Dear all. >> Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall? >> He has been victim of a smear campaign before! >> I don’t see he has claimed this article on his blog http://scholarlyoa.com/ >> or his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which actually functions as his RSS >> feed). >> I really like to hear from the man himself on his own turf. >> Wouter >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[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. 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
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
