While I fully appreciate concerns that "DOAJ does what it can with the resources it has (and it does all this very well", applaud, and benefit from DOAJ, I also appreciate Heather Morrison's thoughtful reflections that raise questions and concerns. Others may share her thoughts, but may be less likely to raise them in such a public forum. DOAJ and others can address these challenges (as they are able to do so) and perhaps raise a stronger base of support.
In response to Jean-Claude question, "Are these the most important questions presently facing open access and open science?" There is no right answers to this question and I've been finding Heather Morrison's posts thought-provoking as they draw attention to the impacts of our work on people and policies. I'm sure I'm not alone in this as critical reflections should inform our work and our communities of practice. I am also curious to learn more about Heather's statement that "the open access movement has developed a habit of viewing all feedback / critique as anti-open access and reacting defensively, as if every critic were an enemy." Would you mind saying more about this? As for Heather's questions, "Why is DOAJ asking question about preservation services?" and "Why is DOAJ asking about technical matters such as article download statistics and time from submission to publication?" If these responses are included as search facets, I can see these fields being rather valuable to researchers looking to publish their work OA. At the very least, speaking as someone with a lot less experience and knowledge (about DOAJ and schol comm in general) than Morrison, Guédon and others, I do appreciate constructive contributions, though they may get contentious at times. Respectfully, Paige Paige Mann Scholarly Communications Librarian | STEM Librarian University of Redlands, USA ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:54:32 +0000 From: Gu?don Jean-Claude <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> Subject: Re: [GOAL] DOAJ: handmaiden to despots? or, OA, let's talk To: "goal@eprints.org" <goal@eprints.org> Message-ID: <d09efb31-7dcb-6014-8938-f6f412cc4...@umontreal.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Some responses in the body of the text, in blue Jean_Claude Gu?don On 2019-08-21 11:41 a.m., Heather Morrison wrote: [snip] Some examples, given that both DOAJ and small independent journals have limited resources: * Why is DOAJ building a searchable article database if it is not clear that this makes any sense as a discovery tool for content? To me, this makes a lot of sense and looks pretty clear. * Why is DOAJ asking question about preservation services e.g. LOCKSS, National Archives? Academic libraries have been at the forefront of the open access movement - shouldn't this be their responsibility rather than the journals / DOAJ? Why not ask countries about National Archives rather than DOAJ and the journals? IFLA has advocated for OA; this seems a good fit for IFLA. DOAJ may well want to limit itself to journals that seem to have a clear idea of how they should be preserved over the medium to long term. It is a mark of professionalism. * Why is DOAJ asking about technical matters such as article download statistics and time from submission to publication? If you want to make sure that you are dealing with legitimate journals, it may be useful to know that its articles are downloaded fairly regularly and at some significant level. The same is true about delays in publishing. And, finally, what is wrong with DOAJ asking for a few more details to gain a better understanding of the set of journals they deal with? [snip] My main question remains: why take on DOAJ modus operandi (not to mention its handling of Egyptian journals)? Are these the most important questions presently facing open access and open science? I think not! _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
