Dear Falk, Thank you for responding. Unfortunately, what you say does not comfort me and, I would think, would not comfort anyone who has become a victim of a predatory publisher. I say this because:
1. Whitelists like DOAJ are not perfect and, like Think.Check.Submit, offer no remedy or solution for those who have become victims. Likewise, I cannot see how OpenAPC or open contracts are going to help victims of predatory publishing. 2. I find it odd that you should respond by saying that there is no evidence that the problem is increasing. Is it not enough that there are victims and that no one seems willing to help them? 3. In my post, I say exactly what I mean when I use the term predatory publisher. By your response, I can only assume you are saying either that a) you don't agree that there are any publishers who fall within my definition or b) you don't believe there are enough of them to warrant trying to help them? I have no idea what you mean by "Crusaderism and missing checks and balances". Richard Poynder On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 14:50, Reckling, Falk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > > 1) A number of actions are mentioned in the response, the most important > one is to support DOAJ, to publish publication costs via Open APC and make > publishing contracts openly in the future. > > > > 2) There is no reliable empirical evidence that the phenomenon of > predatory publishing has increased massively over time. > > > > 3) There is still a problem of definition: Currently all sorts of things > are subsumed under predatory publishing. This ranges from naive, > under-funded, unprofessional, joke to profit-seeking and fake. That was one > reason why Beall's black list was useless, not to mention Crusaderism and > missing checks and balances. > > > > In short, we should observe and scientifically analyse the phenomenon, but > also not overestimate and panic. > > > > Best > > > Falk > > > > > > > > *Von:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *Im Auftrag > von *Richard Poynder > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2018 15:22 > *An:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> > *Betreff:* Re: [GOAL] Predatory Publishing > > > > Thanks for posting this Falk. I have yet to see concerted action taken > anywhere to support researchers who become victims of predatory publishers. > > > > I also do not think I see any recognition of their plight, or details of > what is being planned to help them, in your document. Perhaps I missed it. > > > > Anyway, I have blogged about the topic here: > > > > > https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/07/falling-prey-to-predatory-oa-publisher.html > > > > Richard Poynder > > > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 13:51 Reckling, Falk, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The Austrian Science Board and the FWF Respond to the Recent Media Reports > on the Questionable Practices of Several Scholarly Publishers > > > https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/news-and-media-relations/news/detail/nid/20180724-2314/ > > > > ___________________________________ > Falk Reckling, PhD > Head of Department > Strategy - Policy, Evaluation, Analysis > > FWF Austrian Science Fund > 1090 Vienna, Sensengasse 1, Austria > T: +43 1 505 67 40 8861 > M: +43 664 530 73 68 > [email protected] > CV via ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1326-1766 > > > > > > > *BE OPEN - Science & Society Festival* > 50 years of top research funded by FWF > Sep 8 to 12, 2018 | Vienna | www.fwf.ac.at/beopen > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > * BE OPEN - Science & Society Festival* > 50 years of top research funded by FWF > Sep 8 to 12, 2018 | Vienna | www.fwf.ac.at/beopen > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- Richard Poynder
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
