> On May 14, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Dana Roth <dzr...@library.caltech.edu> wrote: > > I fail to see how identifying a presumed defect (i.e., DOAJ's listing of a > questionable journal) is defamatory. > > Since DOAJ, in the past, was essentially clueless (or reluctant to act) about > questionable journals, isn't Jeffery Beal doing the community a very > important service by alerting us to what might be an unresolved problem?
Neither Jeffrey Beall nor DOAJ is yet performing an authoritative, reliable service. Both are better than nothing. Neither individually, nor both together, are enough, if we need to know with high probability whether a journal is legitimate or not. Even less so if we need to know the quality (if any) of a new journal (and most of these Gold OA journals are new). This is partly because there is no way to know the quality of a new journal, whether OA or subscription. Only time will tell, and the potential authorship/readership will judge it from its track record, once there is one. (This also applies to “mega-journals” like PLOS One, which is far too big and uneven to establish a uniform track record.) But in today’s volume of output, and press to publish-or-perish, authors are not waiting, and the fashionability (not paired with a real comprehension) of OA has conferred a superficial legitimacy on quick publication in new OA “journals” on the pretext that it is being done for OA (when it is really for quick, sure publication). And, in the background, Green OA is still there, to provide OA, while publishing in journals with track records, their quality standards known, having won their level through the test of time. To my mind, the Gold OA journal conundrum — solved by neither DOAJ nor Beall — is yet another symptom of a rather unthinking (and unnecessary) rush for what glitters (Fools Gold), instead of mandating and providing Green OA now and otherwise allowing nature to take its course, letting Fair Gold OA come once universal Green OA has made subscriptions unsustainable, forcing the established journals to downsize and convert to Fair Gold. Meanwhile, for those who want OA now, they need only mandate and provide it, without having to worry about the quality of new journals or the reliability of Beall or DOAJ. Ditto for peer-review reform (which is also not a valid pretext for publishing in journals without track records for quality). New forms of peer review need time too, to demonstrate that they work. Stevan Harnad > > Dana L. Roth > Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 > 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 > 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 > dzr...@library.caltech.edu <mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu> > http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm > <http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm> > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> > [goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] on behalf of > Jean-Claude Guédon [jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca > <mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>] > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:14 AM > To: goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer > review? > > Surprisingly, Dr. Schwartz has not yet noticed that a rather open and > vigorous debate about OA has been going on for the better part of two > decades, including debates among OA supporters. Mr. Beall is absolutely > welcomed in this debate, so long as he debates (as opposed to taking > potshots, for example). > > Furthermore, what I was doing was not intervening in an OA debate; it was > simply reacting to Mr. Beall's defamatory comment about DOAJ (I am not too > surprised... etc.). > > DOAJ is an open, transparent, organization that tries to put some good > information about OA journals. It has limited resources and it relies on a > number of volunteers; in short, it does its best in a very honest fashion. It > is not perfect, but few things are perfect in this vale of tears... > > Those who see mistakes in the DOAJ list should do as those who see mistakes > in Wikipedia: rather than criticize the device, help correct the content. > > As for the alleged bullying dimension of my statement, I could not even begin > to comment. I do not have the psychiatric credentials of Dr. Schwartz, and > would not know how to handle categories that seem to change significantly > every decade or so. Let me be clear, however, on one crucial point: bullying > (as I understand this term - i.e. a strong individual imposing his/her will > on another individual ) was not among my intentions. I was simply rising to > the defence of an organization that was inappropriately attacked. It may just > be that one's "vigour" is felt by the other as "bullying", but then what > about a "vigorous ... debate"? > > In conclusion, thank you for the "powerful partisan" characterization: this > is an evaluation I would never have dared make about myself. <face-smile.png> > > -- > Jean-Claude Guédon > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > > > Le jeudi 14 mai 2015 à 09:14 -0500, Michael Schwartz a écrit : >> >> 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 >> <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca <mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>> >> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GOAL mailing list >>> GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> >>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>> <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal> > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
