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 <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 Laurent Romary INRIA & HUB-IDSL [email protected]
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
