I've read Mr Beall's writings. I'm not being ironic. How can the choir speak to more than the choir?
Michael Schwartz Sent from my iPhone > On May 14, 2015, at 9:59 AM, David Prosser <[email protected]> wrote: > > In defending Jeffrey Beall, Michael Schwartz writes: > > "Gratuitous insulting comments about [] character are inappropriate, to say > the least.” > > I assume that Michael hasn’t read much of Mr Beall’s writings. Or is he > being ironic? > > David > > >> On 14 May 2015, at 15:14, Michael Schwartz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Jean-Claude Guédon's comment on Jeffrey Beall's Blog is "totally mean >> spirited....small." >> >> The many ongoing changes, consolidations, and innovations associated with >> open access require vigorous, open, and respectful debate. Presently in >> today's OA, we see the good...the bad...and the ugly. There is no "slam >> dunk" here. And, sadly, there is precious little debate. I wonder why... >> >> Critics such as Jeffrey Beall should be welcomed, not shamed. Gratuitous >> insulting comments about their character are inappropriate, to say the >> least. And the more powerful and influential the bully the more >> inappropriate. >> >> As long as powerful partisan's hammer away from their bully pulpit - without >> reproach, a really vigorous and open debate - which MUST occur for all sorts >> of reasons - cannot and will not happen. How sad.... >> >> Michael Schwartz >> >> Michael Schwartz, MD >> Clinical Professor of Psychiatry >> Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine >> Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On May 14, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes: >>> >>> "I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake impact >>> factors and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:.." >>> >>> This is totally mean spirited. This is small. >>> >>> DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to review >>> the quality of journals. If Mr. Beall devoted a small fraction of his >>> admirable energy to helping DOAJ weed out bad journals, rather than bask in >>> total negativism, we would all be better off. >>> >>> Jean-Claude Guédon >>> >>> -- >>> Jean-Claude Guédon >>> Professeur titulaire >>> Littérature comparée >>> Université de Montréal >>> >>> >>>> Le mardi 12 mai 2015 à 21:17 +0000, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit : >>>> In the interest of presenting different viewpoints on this topic, I too >>>> would like to share the blog post I published today. My blog post is about >>>> a gold open-access journal that claims it has no article processing >>>> charges but, when you read the fine print, you will discover that it >>>> demands a "maintenance fee" from authors whose work is accepted for >>>> publication. >>>> >>>> The blog post is here: >>>> http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/05/12/low-quality-no-author-fee-oa-journal-has-hidden-charges/ >>>> >>>> Also, the journal promises to carry out peer review in 3-4 days. It's >>>> included in DOAJ, which incorrectly reports that the journal does not >>>> charge any author fees. >>>> >>>> The journal also boldly displays fake impact factors from six different >>>> companies. >>>> >>>> I believe that this journal will also be of interest to historians, >>>> anthropologists, and other social scientists. >>>> >>>> >>>> Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor >>>> Auraria Library >>>> University of Colorado Denver >>>> 1100 Lawrence St. >>>> Denver, Colo. 80204 USA >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >>>> Of Heather Morrison >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 2:39 PM >>>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >>>> Subject: [GOAL] Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer >>>> review? >>>> >>>> In the early days as many on this list will no doubt remember, open access >>>> advocates spent a lot of time defending OA from the ludicrous argument >>>> that peer review somehow was dependent on subscription-based publishing. >>>> Have we over-reacted, and are we now placing far too much emphasis on the >>>> technicalities of peer review? >>>> >>>> This post draws on an example of a journal that is now fully open access >>>> and peer reviewed, which emerged from a conference a few decades ago after >>>> a 5-year stint as a newsletter, and asks whether we have gone too far in >>>> separating the peer-reviewed article from the broader scholarly >>>> communication / community of which the article logically forms just one >>>> part: >>>> http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/12/from-conference-to-newsletter-to-journal-a-challenge-to-the-emphasis-on-peer-review/ >>>> >>>> I've added two sections to the Research Questions page in the Open Access >>>> Directory: >>>> http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_questions >>>> >>>> Open access in the context of scholarly communication and community flows >>>> from the challenge to narrow emphasis on peer review described above. >>>> There are questions here that might interest historians, anthropologists, >>>> or other social scientists. >>>> >>>> The open versus private section may engage scholars from a variety of >>>> humanities and social sciences; there are interesting theoretical and >>>> empirical questions in relation to all of the open movements. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
