Assuming that I am not alone in my concern about over-reliance on Beall's list, perhaps we can find a solution that targets this specific problem without more work than is really necessary? One thought for a remedy: could we find a way to crowdsource objective, dispassionate scholarly critique of this list and the assumptions people make about it?
For example, the focus on OA publishers is a distraction from the fact that problematic practices can and do happen with all types of publishers. This is a serious limitation to Beall's list, which should be highlighted to the reader. As a peer reviewer or editor, I would insist that Beall do this before publishing his work, if this list were submitted to me for review. A similar type of issue is an assumption that Beall categorizes all publishers on the list as predatory. Even Beall's title should make it clear that the range is potential, probable of actual predatory publishers. This is a system of assumption of guilt that does fit with expectations of justice in Canada or the US. Anyone is a potential criminal or predatory if a publisher; it is not possible to prove otherwise. If we have evidence that Beall refuses to remove a publisher from the list when provided with proof that the publisher is legit, let's post the proof or at least provide a place where people can post. This might be helpful to scholars who have decided to ignore Beall in publishing choices for valid reasons. Scholarly critique, including critique of OA practices, is necessary to advance our knowledge. Beall has done some good work in exposing poor practices. His own work could benefit from the same critical lens. just a thought. Heather Morrison _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
