This article comes from a "comments, non-peer-reviewed" section of Triple C: http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/index
I think it speaks well to the commitment of Triple C to intellectual freedom that it chose to publish this particular opinion piece. The triple c in triple c is "communication, capitalism and critique" and normally I would expect to see anti-capitalist rather than anti-anti-capitalist articles in this particular journal. Triple C is a highly regarded OA journal in the field of critical communication. There are some highly regarded scholars on the editorial board. best, Heather Morrison On 2013-12-09, at 5:27 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: > One should never underestimate Jeffrey Beall's sense of humour... > <face-smile.png> And we all admire his capacity for predictions and > categorizations. > > This said, I would love to hear about those who did the peer review for > Beall's article. Are there any? If not, perhaps the journal Triple-C could > qualify to enter a certain Jeffrey Beall's list, even though this decision > might give rise to a conflict of disinterest... > > Of course, my earlier suggestion to fork Beall's list and place it in > responsible hands (such as DOAJ supported by a consortium of libraries) would > allow moving past the conflict of disinterest. > > If Woody Allen ever should come across this (admittedly picayune) discussion, > it could lead to some really funny moments in a good movie. > > Oh, Jeffrey Beall, what would we do without you? How dull the world! Does it > take a mile-high city to create this kind of thinking? Oxygen, anyone? > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > Le lundi 09 décembre 2013 à 14:45 -0700, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit : >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 > > -- > Jean-Claude Guédon > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html [email protected] _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
