Thank you very much, David. What you say about DOAJ's reactions to feedback and critique can also be extended to many groups, organizations and people involved in the promotion of OA. As for the "OA movement", if it is treated like some kind of homogeneous, unanimous group of advocates, I have yet to see it. Part of the strength of the push toward OA and, now, open science has been the robust tone of the debates accompanying this evolution.
Nowadays, debates tend to focus more on which kind(s) of OA/OS is to be desired; The goal of OA or OS appears increasingly obvious. By contrast, the supporters of the subscription model are found mainly among publishers, with a few librarians, consultants and information science specialists as fellow-travellers. APCs and flipping schemes are nothing more than the consequence of (unconsciously?) adopting the publisher standpoint and looking for new revenue streams, should subscriptions disappear. In this process, the imperatives of scholarly and scientific communication simply take second rank, or even disappear. Thank you again, David. Jean-Claude On 2019-08-21 5:43 p.m., David Prosser wrote: I was on the Advisory Board at the time and so my comments may be discounted. But my feeling is that the history of the DOAJ over the past few years has been that it has responded positively to very robust criticism, worked closely with the wider community in an interactive and engaged way to address such criticism, and emerged stronger as a result. Any suggestion that the DOAJ has regarded 'all feedback / critique as anti-open access' is, in my view, hugely wide of the mark. David ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> <goal-boun...@eprints.org><mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of Guédon Jean-Claude <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca><mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> Sent: 21 August 2019 22:18 To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org> <goal@eprints.org><mailto:goal@eprints.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] DOAJ: handmaiden to despots? or, OA, let's talk "A habit of viewing all feedback / critique as anti-open access? Can such a statement be convincingly demonstrated? I strongly doubt it... "...reacting defensively, as if every critic were an enemy ..." Really? Every critic? Now, now... IMHO, robust exchanges should not be confused with various forms of paranoia, and pointing out weaknesses in arguments is not equivalent to treating someone as an "enemy". Jean-Claude Guédon On 2019-08-21 4:18 p.m., Heather Morrison wrote: Some further perspective on my comment "the open access movement has developed a habit of viewing all feedback / critique as anti-open access [emphasis added] and reacting defensively, as if every [emphasis added] critic were an enemy" reflects the history of the OA movement. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
