[GOAL] Re: Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

[Beall, Jeffrey]

I think that Guedon's advice to "Remove access to Lingua going forward" is the 
moral equivalent of a book banning.

There's no moral difference between saying "Remove access to Lingua" and saying 
"Remove the book Heather Has Two Mommies."

I understand that all book banners (and journal banners) think they are doing 
the right thing and helping society.

I think it is shameful for anyone, especially a librarian, to call for the 
removal of content from a library.

Guedon is the modern-day equivalent of a book banner. He is pressuring 
libraries to ban serials, the same, morally, as banning books.

Jeffrey Beall
University of Colorado Denver

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Poynder
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:59 PM
To: 'Global Open Access List' 
Subject: [GOAL] Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial board 
members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

I am posting this message on behalf of Jean-Claude Guédon:


The article below (thanks to Colin Steele) is an example of a courageous move 
that must be supported by the libraries.

With regard to the Lingua (now Glossa) editorial board, libraries could, for 
example,

1. Remove access to Lingua going forward (keep access to archive up to December 
31st, 2015) if caught in a Big Deal; remove Lingua from subscriptions, starting 
in 2016, if not in a Big Deal

2. Support Glossa (the new journal) financially,

3. Promote Glossa widely. ERIH is already classifying the new journal at the 
level of its current status by arguing that the quality of a journal is linked 
to the editors and editorial board, and not to the publisher.

Researchers in linguistics, of course, should boycott Elsevier's Lingua from 
now on.

This event also demonstrates the importance for Learned and scientific 
societies not to sell the title of their journals to publishers. So long as we 
foolishly evaluate research according to the place where it is published (i.e. 
a journal title), publishers will hold a strong trump card.

Finally, this event displays the incredible behaviour of the multinational, 
commercial, publishers with particular clarity. These are not the friends of 
the scientific communication system we need.

>>

Extract from Inside Higher Ed article:

"All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua, one of the top 
journals in linguistics, last week resigned to protest Elsevier's policies on 
pricing and its refusal to convert the journal to an open-access publication 
that would be free online. As soon as January, when the departing editors' 
noncompete contracts expire, they plan to start a new open-access journal to be 
called Glossa."

The article can be read in full here:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/02/editors-and-editorial-board-quit-top-linguistics-journal-protest-subscription-fees

For a list of some of the other coverage of this issue see here: 
http://kaivonfintel.org/2015/11/05/lingua-roundup/

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Eric,

Your accusation is completely false and irresponsible. The purpose of my lists 
is to help honest researchers avoid becoming victims of scam OA journals and 
publishers. I have never advocated banning any publication, and if you are 
going to make such statements they should be backed up by solid evidence, of 
which there is none. Learn to distinguish between warning and banning. You made 
a baseless personal attack. Is this how you and your company operate?

Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 6:14 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial 
board members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

Jeffrey

Your black list is the largest journal banner in the world. Where do you take 
the moral authority to give lessons to others who want to do the same thing on 
a much smaller scale?

Éric

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Beall, Jeffrey
Sent: November-13-15 6:55 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial 
board members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

I think that Guedon's advice to "Remove access to Lingua going forward" is the 
moral equivalent of a book banning.

There's no moral difference between saying "Remove access to Lingua" and saying 
"Remove the book Heather Has Two Mommies."

I understand that all book banners (and journal banners) think they are doing 
the right thing and helping society.

I think it is shameful for anyone, especially a librarian, to call for the 
removal of content from a library.

Guedon is the modern-day equivalent of a book banner. He is pressuring 
libraries to ban serials, the same, morally, as banning books.

Jeffrey Beall
University of Colorado Denver

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Richard Poynder
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:59 PM
To: 'Global Open Access List' <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: [GOAL] Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial board 
members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

I am posting this message on behalf of Jean-Claude Guédon:


The article below (thanks to Colin Steele) is an example of a courageous move 
that must be supported by the libraries.

With regard to the Lingua (now Glossa) editorial board, libraries could, for 
example,

1. Remove access to Lingua going forward (keep access to archive up to December 
31st, 2015) if caught in a Big Deal; remove Lingua from subscriptions, starting 
in 2016, if not in a Big Deal

2. Support Glossa (the new journal) financially,

3. Promote Glossa widely. ERIH is already classifying the new journal at the 
level of its current status by arguing that the quality of a journal is linked 
to the editors and editorial board, and not to the publisher.

Researchers in linguistics, of course, should boycott Elsevier's Lingua from 
now on.

This event also demonstrates the importance for Learned and scientific 
societies not to sell the title of their journals to publishers. So long as we 
foolishly evaluate research according to the place where it is published (i.e. 
a journal title), publishers will hold a strong trump card.

Finally, this event displays the incredible behaviour of the multinational, 
commercial, publishers with particular clarity. These are not the friends of 
the scientific communication system we need.

>>

Extract from Inside Higher Ed article:

"All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua, one of the top 
journals in linguistics, last week resigned to protest Elsevier's policies on 
pricing and its refusal to convert the journal to an open-access publication 
that would be free online. As soon as January, when the departing editors' 
noncompete contracts expire, they plan to start a new open-access journal to be 
called Glossa."

The article can be read in full here:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/02/editors-and-editorial-board-quit-top-linguistics-journal-protest-subscription-fees

For a list of some of the other coverage of this issue see here: 
http://kaivonfintel.org/2015/11/05/lingua-roundup/


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6173 / Virus Database: 4457/10972 - Release Date: 11/09/15
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Eric:

I have two questions.

1. For the record, does your for-profit business or do you personally have any 
business relationship with any of the publishers or journals on my lists? If 
so, which ones?

2. In your email you refer to a recently-published article, and you name and 
discuss the second author, but you fail to mention or credit the lead and 
corresponding author, Cenyu Shen. Was this because of his race?

Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:38 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci 
Subject: [GOAL] Need for a new beginning

Dear list members:
What started as a one-man, useful list that identified “Potential, possible, or 
probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”, which Jeffrey himself 
further qualifies as a “list of questionable, scholarly open-access 
publishers”, has now overshot its usefulness. We need a new beginning.
If these publishers are questionable, let’s find a mechanism to question them, 
and let’s, at the very least, document their answers. Currently, this list of
Release Date: 10/01/15
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Dr. Couture is correct that the passage I cited does not itself cite the 2012 
SOAP study, and I apologize for this error.

Here is what I really should have included:

The overwhelming majority (nearly 70%) of OA journals charge no APCs. 
Moreover, when they do charge APCs, the fees are usually paid by funders (59%) 
or by universities (24%). Only 12% of the time are they paid by authors out of 
pocket. See Table 4 of the comprehensive Study of Open Access Publishing 
(SOAP). http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260;

This passage is from Dr. Peter Suber's blog here: 
https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/K1UE3XDk9E9
I also got the year of the SOAP study wrong; it was 2011, not 2012. Dr. Suber's 
blog post quoted above is from April 5, 2013.

Jeffrey Beall


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Couture Marc
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

Hi all,

Well, I don't know exactly what part of Jeffrey Beall's post Dana Roth agrees 
with, but I'm wondering about that part of the same post:




most peer-reviewed open access journals charge no fees at all. [1] This 
misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that examined a 
non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, so 
conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn from 
it.





I found no link to or mention of a 2012 study in the cited blog post (by Peter 
Suber). Before we go any further (if need be), perhaps we should ask Mr Beall 
to tell us what study he alludes to, so that we can judge by ourselves the 
validity of conclusions such as the one in the excerpt quoted.



Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Dana Roth
Envoyé : 14 août 2015 13:40
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

I strongly agree with Jeffrey Beall ... journals, like 'ACS Central Science', 
that provide OA without author charges need to be recognized and applauded!

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Stevan Harnad [amscifo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:16 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
1. Green OA means OA provided by the author (usually by self-archiving the 
refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository)

2. Gold OA means OA provided by the journal (often for a publication fee)

3. Gratis OA means free online access.

4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights

There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms (of 
which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy [the 
latter not to be confused with gratis])

After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop 
fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it...

Stevan Harnad,
Erstwhile Archivangelist

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Beall, Jeffrey 
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edumailto:jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu wrote:
For the record, some also use the term platinum open access, which refers to 
open-access publications for which the authors are not charged (no charge to 
the author and no charge to the reader). Using this term brings great clarity 
to discussions of open-access journals and author fees. Using gold to refer 
both to journals that charge authors (gold) and those that do not charge 
authors (platinum) leads to confusion, ambiguity, and misunderstanding.

Some have abused the term gold open access to promote open access, 
proclaiming, for example, that most peer-reviewed open access journals charge 
no fees at all. [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that 
examined a non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, 
so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn 
from it.

Jeffrey Beall

[1]. 
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Danny Kingsley
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM
To: goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

Thanks Helene,

Yes you are not the first to be confused which was which because I put the 
terms in a different order.

Gold open access is 'born

[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Right, but the point I was trying to make is that one should not make general 
statements about all scholarly open-access journals based on studies from a 
non-representational, limited, and strictly-defined subset of OA journals, 
namely those in DOAJ.

In other words, Suber's 2013 statement, The overwhelming majority (nearly 70%) 
of OA journals charge no APCs is irresponsible and misleading because the data 
the statement is based on was not gathered from the entire cohort of OA 
journals - it was gathered from a curated subset of them, a subset not intended 
to be a representative sample of the universe of OA journals. But Suber kept 
making statements like this, statements not supported by the data.

I think if the 2011 SOAP study had also gathered and included data from all the 
journals on my list that are not in DOAJ, the results would have been much 
different, for the vast majority of the thousands and thousands of journals 
published by publishers on my list charge author fees. It's as if Suber's 
statements were made based on cherry-picked data.

Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 3:40 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

According to DOAJ, 67.6% of journals listed (6,283 journals), while 32.3% 
(2,999 journals) do not have article processing charges. This information is 
historical - about a year old, from before the DOAJ upgrade.


Based on our APC survey data (2014, 2015 in progress), I suspect the number of 
APC-charging may be over -stated. The number of journals with conditional 
charges appears to have been added to the total.


Also, based on our in-depth look at a large sample of these journals, it 
appears that some of the APCs may actually be old-fashioned print-based page 
charges for journals still publishing in print as well as online.  For example, 
some journals refer to costs for colour printing. We haven't looked in-depth at 
the journals that were identified as conditional charges, however one example 
of a type of common conditional cost that is clearly not an APC is when an 
author wishes to take advantage of an optional purchase of off-prints.


I believe there is some evidence that there are more articles published in 
APC-charging journals than non-APC charging journals. This does not impact the 
percentage of journals with and without APCs.


References


DOAJ historical data:
https://doajournals.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/historical-apc-data-from-before-the-april-upgrade/


2014 survey:
http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/3/1/1


Partial 2015 results and analysis from: 
sustainingknowledgecommons.orghttp://sustainingknowledgecommons.org


best,


Heather Morrison

On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Beall, Jeffrey 
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edumailto:jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu wrote:
Dr. Couture is correct that the passage I cited does not itself cite the 2012 
SOAP study, and I apologize for this error.

Here is what I really should have included:

The overwhelming majority (nearly 70%) of OA journals charge no APCs. 
Moreover, when they do charge APCs, the fees are usually paid by funders (59%) 
or by universities (24%). Only 12% of the time are they paid by authors out of 
pocket. See Table 4 of the comprehensive Study of Open Access Publishing 
(SOAP). http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260;

This passage is from Dr. Peter Suber's blog here: 
https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/K1UE3XDk9E9
I also got the year of the SOAP study wrong; it was 2011, not 2012. Dr. Suber's 
blog post quoted above is from April 5, 2013.

Jeffrey Beall


From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Couture Marc
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

Hi all,

Well, I don't know exactly what part of Jeffrey Beall's post Dana Roth agrees 
with, but I'm wondering about that part of the same post:




most peer-reviewed open access journals charge no fees at all. [1] This 
misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that examined a 
non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, so 
conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn from 
it.





I found no link to or mention of a 2012 study in the cited blog post (by Peter 
Suber). Before we go any further (if need be), perhaps we should ask Mr Beall 
to tell us what study he alludes to, so that we can judge by ourselves the 
validity of conclusions such as the one in the excerpt quoted.



Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Dana Roth
Envoyé : 14 août 2015 13:40
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

I

[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Beall, Jeffrey]

For the record, some also use the term platinum open access, which refers to 
open-access publications for which the authors are not charged (no charge to 
the author and no charge to the reader). Using this term brings great clarity 
to discussions of open-access journals and author fees. Using gold to refer 
both to journals that charge authors (gold) and those that do not charge 
authors (platinum) leads to confusion, ambiguity, and misunderstanding.

Some have abused the term gold open access to promote open access, 
proclaiming, for example, that most peer-reviewed open access journals charge 
no fees at all. [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that 
examined a non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, 
so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn 
from it.

Jeffrey Beall

[1]. 
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Danny Kingsley
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

Thanks Helene,

Yes you are not the first to be confused which was which because I put the 
terms in a different order.

Gold open access is 'born' open access - because it is published open in an 
open access journal (with or without a cost), or in a hybrid journal where the 
remainder of the journal remains under subscription (always incurs a cost). 
There are many, many times that the terms 'gold open access' has been taken to 
mean 'pay for open access'. Publishers of course have done little to dissuade 
this impression.

Green open access is 'secondary' open access because it is published in a 
traditional manner (usually a susbcription journal) and a copy of the work is 
placed in a repository - institutional or subject.

I hope that is a bit clearer. I agree it would not be easy to change. But we 
all used to call things preprints and postprints. That really made no sense 
because post-prints were not yet printed. We do not use those terms any more, 
not in the UK anyway. We use the terms Submitted Manuscript, Author's Accepted 
Manuscript (AAM) and Version of Record (VoR).

Regards,

Danny

 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
 scrubbed...
 URL: 
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150814/8a9
 4cdff/attachment-0001.html

 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:28:01 +0200
 From: H?l?ne.Bosc hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
 To: Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)
   goal@eprints.org
 Message-ID: 8A81FFDC57274D9287431EE2740BA515@PCdeHelene
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 Yes there is an appetite for trying to rebuilt the past in changing OA names!
 But even if the words Green and Gold can hurt some people it has been 
 adopted for years now by all institutions, for example in European 
 reports, since 2006. See the last one in June 2015 : 
 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-informati
 on

 Of course, everybody can rename Green and Gold as well as Open Access. But 
 the difficulty will be to get the change worldwide.

 Nicolas Pettiaux, for example proposed in a previous mail, Libre instead of 
 Open Access!

 Therefore mixing his idea with your option, Born Open Access and 
 Secondary Open Access could become Born Libre and Trying to get 
 Libre... ;-)

 BTW, I am not sure that I have well understood what means Green and what 
 means Gold in your proposition!

 We could play on this list to find best definition and vote for it! But the 
 aim of Open Access is not to find the best OA word for 2015, then for 2016 
 and for 2020! The aim is to stay clear for all stake holders, at the time of 
 important political decisions are taken. Policy makers seem to have 
 understood what is Green and what is Gold. They need only to have more 
 details on the true Gold and Green roads which really conduct to OA.

 To be efficient today, we just need to repeat what is precisely Green or 
 Gold, and how to get it, in each publication, conference, blog  and forum, as 
 Stevan Harnad and Jean-Claude Gu?don do it for years now.

 H?l?ne Bosc
- Original Message -
From: Danny Kingsley
To: goal@eprints.org
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 6:56 PM
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues


Hi all,

There is some appetite it seems for looking at definitions at the moment. 
 In the last couple of weeks I have tweeted about the following:

  a.. COAR has a 'Resource Type Vocabulary Draft' - standard naming of 
 items in repositories available for comment - 
 

[GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[Beall, Jeffrey]

In the interest of presenting different viewpoints on this topic, I too would 
like to share the blog post I published today. My blog post is about a gold 
open-access journal that claims it has no article processing charges but, when 
you read the fine print, you will discover that it demands a maintenance fee 
from authors whose work is accepted for publication. 

The blog post is here: 
http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/05/12/low-quality-no-author-fee-oa-journal-has-hidden-charges/

Also, the journal promises to carry out peer review in 3-4 days. It's included 
in DOAJ, which incorrectly reports that the journal does not charge any author 
fees. 

The journal also boldly displays fake impact factors from six different 
companies. 

I believe that this journal will also be of interest to historians, 
anthropologists, and other social scientists.


Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 2:39 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

In the early days as many on this list will no doubt remember, open access 
advocates spent a lot of time defending OA from the ludicrous argument that 
peer review somehow was dependent on subscription-based publishing. Have we 
over-reacted, and are we now placing far too much emphasis on the 
technicalities of peer review? 

This post draws on an example of a journal that is now fully open access and 
peer reviewed, which emerged from a conference a few decades ago after a 5-year 
stint as a newsletter, and asks whether we have gone too far in separating the 
peer-reviewed article from the broader scholarly communication / community of 
which the article logically forms just one part:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/12/from-conference-to-newsletter-to-journal-a-challenge-to-the-emphasis-on-peer-review/

I've added two sections to the Research Questions page in the Open Access 
Directory:
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_questions

Open access in the context of scholarly communication and community flows from 
the challenge to narrow emphasis on peer review described above. There are 
questions here that might interest historians, anthropologists, or other social 
scientists.

The open versus private section may engage scholars from a variety of 
humanities and social sciences; there are interesting theoretical and empirical 
questions in relation to all of the open movements. 

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University 
of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
GOAL mailing list
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

[GOAL] Re: Sharing and reuse - not within a commercial economy, but within a sharing economy

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Regarding this ongoing discussion about Creative Commons licenses and scholarly 
publishers, I think it is fair to conclude the following:

1. There is much disagreement about what the licenses mean, how they can be 
interpreted, and how they are applied in real-world situations

2. The licenses are not as simple as advertised. In fact, they are complex 
legal documents subject to expert interpretation, and they lead to ongoing 
contentiousness and debate, even among experts. 

3. There is beauty in the simplicity of copyright, that is, transferring one's 
copyright to a publisher. It is binary. The terms are clear. The publisher 
employs professionals that expertly manage the copyright. Owning the copyright 
incentives the publisher to make the work available and preserve it over time. 

I just had an article accepted recently, and last week I turned in a form 
transferring copyright to the publisher, something I was happy to do. There is 
nothing wrong with this. It's my choice. The paper will eventually appear in 
J-STOR and will be preserved.

My transaction was easy to understand, unambiguous, and clear. Let's remember 
that transferring copyright to a high quality publisher is still a valid option 
and for many authors may be the best option.

Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Scholarly Communications Librarian
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936 
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Question why journals in DOAJ are being listed as 'Australian'

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Danny,

I have been monitoring this publisher closely recently. I regularly receive 
inquiries about it -- researchers asking me whether it is predatory or not.

I currently do not have it included on the list of predatory publishers. 
Contrary to an opinion expressed earlier, for many, the country of publication 
is very important. Researchers in many countries get more academic credit 
towards tenure, promotion, and the annual evaluation when they publish in a 
journal based in a western country. (This is why many predatory publishers 
often pretend to be from western countries).

I recently posted an inquiry on this list seeking comments about this company's 
peer-review portability policy (it allows authors themselves to transfer peer 
reviews from the rejecting publisher to Ivyspring.)

Ivyspring until recently said it was based in Wyoming, NSW. Now they've changed 
their official address to this:

Ivyspring International Publisher Pty Ltd
Level 32, 1 Market Street
Sydney, NSW 2000
Australia

That address matches the address of Alliance Business 
Centershttp://www.abcn.com/offices-sydney--level-32-1-market-street-3264, a 
virtual office company. Also, according to an Australian business directory, 
the publisher's owner is Jinxin Jason Lin.

I think it's safe to say this company lacks needed transparency. Who owns it? 
Where are they based? What experience do the owners have with scholarly 
publishing? Why are they using a virtual office as their headquarters address? 
What is the extent of this company's connection to Australia? To other 
countries?

--Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Danny Kingsley
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:46 PM
To: 'goal@eprints.org'
Subject: [GOAL] Question why journals in DOAJ are being listed as 'Australian'

Hello all,

I recently looked at the DOAJ list of Australian journals to determine how many 
Australian OA journals charge an APC. Of the list of 115 journals on the DOAJ, 
12 charge an APC.

However on investigation seven of these 12 do not appear to be Australian 
journals at all.

There is no definitive list of Australian OA journals - the AOASG page 
http://aoasg.org.au/open-access-in-action/australian-oa-journals/ lists 150  
(compared to the smaller DOAJ list) and before I investigated this it did not 
include the five genuinely OA Australian journals that charge an APC.

My questions are:

*   Does anyone know why these journals would be appearing on DOAJ as 
'Australian'?

*   Five of them are published by Ivyspring International Publishers - does 
anyone know anything about this publisher?

Thanks

Danny


Journal

Publisher

APC

Notes

Journal of Genomicshttp://www.jgenomics.com/

Ivyspring International Publisher

No publication charge during the current promotional period of this journal

Not published in Australia and only one Australian listed in the Editorial 
Board.

Theranosticshttp://www.thno.org/

Ivyspring International Publisher

$100AUD

Not published in Australia and there are no Australians listed in the Editorial 
Board

International Journal of Electronics, Engineering and Computer 
Systemshttp://www.irphouse.com/elect/ijece.htm

International Research Publication House

$150USD

Not published in Australia and there are no Australians listed in the Editorial 
Board

Asian Journal of Crop Sciencehttp://scialert.net/current.php?issn=1994-7879

Asian Network for Scientific Information

$370AUD

There is no direct website for the journal and it is difficult to determine the 
countries the Editorial Board come from

Journal of Cancerhttp://www.jcancer.org/

Ivyspring International Publisher

$1100AUD

Not published in Australia and only one Australian listed in the Editorial 
Board.

International Journal of Biological Scienceshttp://www.ijbs.com/

Ivyspring International Publisher

$1450AUD

Not published in Australia and only two Australians listed in the Editorial 
Board.

International Journal of Medical Scienceshttp://www.medsci.org/

Ivyspring International Publisher

$1450AUD

Not published in Australia and only two Australians listed in the Editorial 
Board.




Dr Danny Kingsley
--
Executive Officer
Australian Open Access Support Group (AOASG)
Menzies Library, Building 2
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200 Australia

E: danny.kings...@anu.edu.aumailto:danny.kings...@anu.edu.au
P: +612 6125 6839
W: http://aoasg.org.au
T: @openaccess_oz

Cricos Provider - 00120C

NOTE: I work three days a week: Mondays (on campus), Tuesdays and Thursdays. I 
think about open access 24/7.



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Question about portability of peer review

[Beall, Jeffrey]

An open-access publisher has this policyhttp://www.medsci.org/ms/author 
regarding peer review portability:

The Editors of the International Journal of Medical Sciences recognize that 
many manuscripts rejected by top-tier journals are still outstanding. Our 
journal is willing to review and re-evaluate manuscripts rejected from journals 
such as the Nature journals, Cell Press journals, NEJM, Lancet journals, Annals 
of Internal Medicine, and other high impact journals. We encourage authors to 
provide a copy of previous reviewer's and editor's comments. These reviews and 
rebuttals need to be dated and within 6 months of the last submission date. It 
is our belief that these prior reviews may assist us in expediting your 
manuscript for re-evaluation, thus facilitating more rapid publication; in some 
cases, the manuscript may be accepted immediately. Please include the prior 
reviews and your responses in the covering letter when making your submission.

My question is this: Is peer-review portability considered acceptable when the 
author is the one that transfers the actual peer review data from the rejecting 
publisher to the new one (as described in the policy above)?

Thank you,

Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 534-8600
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu

[cid:image001.jpg@01CF320B.779D2490]


inline: image001.jpg___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Wouter,

Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility for 
it.

I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely this 
statement, OA is all an anti-capitlist plot.

This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote it in 
the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in the article, 
and I have never written such a statement.

Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts.

Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerritsma, Wouter
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:14 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's 
List

Dear all.

Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall?
He has been victim of a smear campaign before!

I don't see he has claimed this article on his blog http://scholarlyoa.com/ or 
his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which actually functions as his RSS feed).

I really like to hear from the man himself on his own turf.

Wouter



From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: maandag 9 december 2013 16:04
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open 
Accesshttp://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514. TripleC 
Communication, Capitalism  Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597 
http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

This wacky article is going to be fun to review. I still think Jeff Beall is 
doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA journals, but I 
now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful conspiracy theory! OA 
is all an anti-capitlist plot. (Even on a quick skim it is evident that Jeff's 
article is rife with half-truths, errors and downright nonsense. Pity. It will 
diminish the credibility of his valid exposés, but maybe this is a good thing, 
if the judgment and motivation behind Beall's list is as kooky as this article! 
But alas it will now also give the genuine predatory junk-journals some 
specious arguments for discrediting Jeff's work altogether. Of course it will 
also give the publishing lobby some good sound-bites, but they use them at 
their peril, because of all the other nonsense in which they are nested!)

Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set the 
stage:

JB: ABSTRACT: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about making 
scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. The OA 
movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of the 
press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also actively imposing 
onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict individual freedom. To 
boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice the academic futures of 
young scholars and those from developing countries, pressuring them to publish 
in lower-quality open-access journals.  The open-access movement has fostered 
the creation of numerous predatory publishers and standalone journals, 
increasing the amount of research misconduct in scholarly publications and the 
amount of pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science.

JB: [F]rom their high-salaried comfortable positions...OA advocates... demand 
that for-profit, scholarly journal publishers not be involved in scholarly 
publishing and devise ways (such as green open-access) to defeat and eliminate 
them...

JB: OA advocates use specious arguments to lobby for mandates, focusing only 
on the supposed economic benefits of open access and ignoring the value 
additions provided by professional publishers. The arguments imply that 
publishers are not really needed; all researchers need to do is upload their 
work, an action that constitutes publishing, and that this act results in a 
product that is somehow similar to the products that professional publishers 
produce

JB:  The open-access movement isn't really about open access. Instead, it is 
about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of the press from those 
who prefer the subscription model of scholarly publishing. It is an 
anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, one that uses young 
researchers and researchers from developing countries as pawns to artificially 
force the make-believe gold and green open-access models to work. The movement 
relies on unnatural mandates that take free choice away from individual 
researchers, mandates set and enforced by an onerous cadre of Soros-funded 
European autocrats...

JB: The open-access movement is a failed social movement and a false messiah, 
but its promoters refuse to admit this. The emergence of numerous predatory 
publishers

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Heather:

I've 
documentedhttp://scholarlyoa.com/2013/04/04/hindawis-profits-are-larger-than-elseviers/
 that Hindawi's profit margin is higher than Elsevier's. So, I am correct in 
assuming that you include Hindawi in your advice below, no? Also, it's been 
revealed that a number of the higher ups at PLOS are drawing salaries of over a 
quarter-million dollars a year, and one was even drawing a salary of over a 
half-million dollars. It appears that the money is just moving from one set of 
publishers to another.

Thanks,

Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Scholars jobs not publisher profits

My reaction to the EBSCO report on expected ongoing high price increases by 
some in the scholarly publishing sector at the same time that academics at my 
alma mater have been asked to consider voluntary severance has been posted to 
my blog:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/10/scholars-lets-keep-our-jobs-and-ditch.html

My conclusion:

It is time for scholars, university administrators and research funders to wake 
up and realize that creation of new knowledge is done by researchers, not 
publishers. Don't give up your job or or let your colleagues give up theirs 
without demanding that the large commercial scholarly publishers give up their 
30-40% profit margins.

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa

http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

ALA Accreditation site visit scheduled for 30 Sept-1 Oct 2013 /
Visite du comité externe pour l'accréditation par l'ALA est prévu le 30
sept-1 oct 2013

http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html
http://www.esi.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

[Beall, Jeffrey]

David,

Thank you for your ignoratio elenchi.

--Jeffrey

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
David Prosser
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 3:03 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

Jeffrey

in the comment section to your post Ahmed Hindawi points out that the average 
revenue per paper published by Hindawi is about $600.  For people like Elsevier 
it is in excess of $4000 per paper.  I think it is clear which publisher is 
taking (significantly) more money out of the system.

David




On 3 Oct 2013, at 20:31, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:


Heather:

I've 
documentedhttp://scholarlyoa.com/2013/04/04/hindawis-profits-are-larger-than-elseviers/
 that Hindawi's profit margin is higher than Elsevier's. So, I am correct in 
assuming that you include Hindawi in your advice below, no? Also, it's been 
revealed that a number of the higher ups at PLOS are drawing salaries of over a 
quarter-million dollars a year, and one was even drawing a salary of over a 
half-million dollars. It appears that the money is just moving from one set of 
publishers to another.

Thanks,

Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Scholars jobs not publisher profits

My reaction to the EBSCO report on expected ongoing high price increases by 
some in the scholarly publishing sector at the same time that academics at my 
alma mater have been asked to consider voluntary severance has been posted to 
my blog:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/10/scholars-lets-keep-our-jobs-and-ditch.html

My conclusion:

It is time for scholars, university administrators and research funders to wake 
up and realize that creation of new knowledge is done by researchers, not 
publishers. Don't give up your job or or let your colleagues give up theirs 
without demanding that the large commercial scholarly publishers give up their 
30-40% profit margins.

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa

http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

ALA Accreditation site visit scheduled for 30 Sept-1 Oct 2013 /
Visite du comité externe pour l'accréditation par l'ALA est prévu le 30
sept-1 oct 2013

http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html
http://www.esi.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html



ATT1..txt

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA Growth Monitoring Needs a Google Data-Mining Exemption

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Dear Prof. Harnad:

Earlier when I highlighted the distinction between gold and platinum 
open-access, you indicated (and your followers confirmed) that we already had 
enough colors of open access and that adding new ones would only serve to 
confuse the matter. Now I see you are using the term black open access, a 
term that is new to me.

Thus, I think your usage gives license to everyone using the term platinum 
open-access, which is published research that is free to the reader and free 
to the author.

Thank you and kind regards,

Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu

[cid:image001.jpg@01CEA243.9A9DBB60]



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 5:45 AM
To: ASIST Special Interest Group on Metrics
Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA Growth Monitoring Needs a Google Data-Mining Exemption

On 2013-08-26, at 6:12 AM, Bosman, J.M.  (Utrech University Library) wrote 
(in SIGMETRICS):


Do you know..

1)   How many of the freely available full text versions are black OA, i.e. 
shared against copyright? I know many examples of that in for instance 
ResearchGate, that is indexed by Google Scholar

There are technically two kinds of Black OA:

(B1) Third-party piracy -- X posting the articles of Y. This is very unlikely 
to be in Institutional Repositories.

(B2) Authors self-archiving their own articles (Green OA), ignoring any 
publisher embargo (most of Arxiv would have been B2 for years, until the 
publishers altered their policy and endorsed immediate, unembargoed Green OA 
self-archiving).

We will soon have separate data for Green OA growth in UK institutional 
repositories (mandated and unmandated).

(Let others count the proportion of that Green OA that is B2: I'm more 
interested in burying publishers' damaging and unjustified access embargoes 
than in praising, enforcing or reinforcing them!))

But let it be noted that access provided after an embargo is Delayed Access 
(DA), not OA, which is immediate (and permanent).

In many if not most fields of research the critical growth period for new 
research uptake is within the first year of publication (if not earlier, for 
preprints), although this may only be expressed and measurable as citations 
somewhat later. This is the research progress that (some) publishers are trying 
to suppress in order to sustain their subscription revenues at all costs (to 
research) by trying to embargo Green OA self-archiving.

(It is ironic also, and instructive, that in fields where the critical growth 
period for new research uptake is longer than a year, publishers are trying to 
impose even longer embargoes on Green OA self-archiving.)

The publishing tail, still trying to keep wagging the research dog, come what 
may...



2)   To what extent [can] the growth of available OA versions be explained by 
increasing numbers of green OA versions of which the embargo period has ended 
and to what extent to more general acceptance of OA by scholars? It seems 
likely that the first effect will be more pronounced 6-24 months after a period 
of exceptional growth of self-archiving in repositories etc.

The empirical part of question 2 would be answered by the data that answer 
question 1.

The rest seems circular:

Yes, by definition, OA growth during embargoes will take place during 
embargoes, not after, whereas OA growth after embargoes have elapsed will take 
place after embargoes have elapsed, not before.

And yes, whatever is actually being done is a sign of acceptance of doing it 
(by authors, I should think, since users looking for articles are ready to 
accept whatever they can find, at least for Gratis OA (read-only), if not Libre 
OA! (read-write).

Stevan Harnad


On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Sean Burns  wrote:
Although a harvester would be very nice, sampling theory and some manual work 
does the trick too... [in my dissertation] I took the sample in May 2010 and 
collected bibliometric and other relevant data from Google Scholar in July 
2010, July 2011, and July 2012.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:58 AM Stevan Harnad wrote:

Yes, hand-sampling can and does provide valuable information.

But, as I said, for systematic ongoing monitoring of the global time-course of 
OA growth across institutions, disciplines and nations, hand-sampling is 
excruciatingly difficult and time-consuming, holding research that could 
greatly benefit the worldwide research community (as well as Google and Google 
Scholar) to a scale and pace that is more suitable for a doctoral dissertation.

Historically speaking, if a few projects designed to monitor the ongoing global 
growth and distribution of OA were allowed to do machine data-mining in Google 
space, the growth rate of OA would be 

[GOAL] Re: The UK's Open Access Policy: Controversy Continues

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Dear Prof. Harnad:

I am delighted that gave a positive mention to authors' choice, as indicated by 
your referring to number six below as a predictable perverse effect of the 
RCUK policy. I agree -- No one should take away an author's freedom of journal 
choice.

6. abrogating authors' freedom of journal-choice [economic model/CC-BY instead 
of quality]

However, you've been a big advocate of mandates, and these mandates effectively 
remove freedom of journal-choice in many instances. I read your recent article, 
Worldwide open access: UK leadership? and saw that you advocate various 
mandates, some of which effectively abrogate the authors' freedom of 
journal-choice. For example, if a journal does not allow green OA archiving, 
then the author would be mandated not to publish in it, effectively removing 
his freedom of journal-choice.

I'd be interested to hear how you reconcile these contradictory views. Why is 
it a flaw for the gold OA model to abrogate authors' freedom of journal-choice 
but not a flaw when the green OA model does the same thing?

Thanks,

Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu

[cid:image001.jpg@01CE5ACA.49BC64A0]



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:51 PM
To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The UK's Open Access Policy: Controversy Continues

Yes, the Finch/RCUK 
policyhttp://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26.html
 has had its predictable perverse effects:
1. sustaining arbitrary, bloated Gold OA fees
2. wasting scarce research funds
3. double-paying publishers [subscriptions plus Gold]
4. handing subscription publishers a hybrid-gold-mine
5. enabling hybrid publishers to double-dip
6. abrogating authors' freedom of journal-choice [economic model/CC-BY instead 
of quality]
7. imposing re-mix licenses that many authors don't want and most users and 
fields don't need
8. inspiring subscription publishers to adopt and lengthen Green OA embargoes 
[to maxmize hybrid-gold revenues]
9. handicapping Green OA mandates worldwide (by incentivizing embargoes)
10. allowing journal-fleet publishers to confuse and exploit institutions and 
authors even more
But the solution is also there (as already adopted in Francophone 
Belgiumhttp://roarmap.eprints.org/850/ and proposed by HEFCE for 
REFhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html):
a. funders and institutions mandate immediate-deposit
b. of the peer-reviewed final draft
c. in the author's institutional repository
d. immediately upon acceptance for publication
e. whether journal is subscription orGold
f. whether access to the deposit is immedate-OA or embargoed
g. whether license is transfered, retained or CC-BY;
h. institutions implement repository's facilitated email eprint request 
Buttonhttps://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy;
i. institutions designate immediate-deposit the mechanism for submitting 
publictions for research performance assessment;
j. institutions monitor and ensure immediate-deposit mandate compliance
This policy restores author choice, moots publisher embargoes, makes Gold and 
CC-BY completely optional, provides the incentive for author compliance and the 
natural institutional mechanism for verifying it, consolidates funder and 
institutional mandates, hsstens the natural death of OA embargoes, the onset of 
universal Green OA, and the resultant institutional subscription cancellations, 
journal downsizing and transition to Fair-Gold OA at an affordable, sustainable 
price, paid out of institutional subscription cancellation savings instead of 
over-priced, double-paid, double-dipped Fool's-Gold. And of course Fair-Gold OA 
will license all the re-use rights users need and authors want to allow.

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:59 PM, LIBLICENSE 
liblice...@gmail.commailto:liblice...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Richard Poynder 
richard.poyn...@gmail.commailto:richard.poyn...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:11:17 +0100

The new Open Access policy introduced this year by Research Councils
UK - in response to last year's Finch Report - has been very
controversial, particularly its exhortation to researchers to prefer
Gold over Green Open Access

When it was first announced there was an outcry from UK universities
over the cost implications of the new policy. In response, on 7th
September last year the UK Minister for Universities and Science David
Willetts made an additional £10 million available to 30 research
intensive universities to help pay OA transition costs.

But the controversy has continued regardless, and in January this year
the House of Lords Science  Technology Committee launched an inquiry
into the policy. The subsequent report 

[GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Thomas,

Could you please explain why you think ORCID is a step backwards? Yours is the 
first negative comment I've heard about it. 

Thank you,

Jeffrey Beall


Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu






-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Thomas Krichel
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:33 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: New Year's challenge for repository developers and 
managers: awesome cross-search

  Robert Hilliker writes

 Further, as initiatives like ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor
 ID) begin to get off the ground, there are opportunities for 
 repositories to play a key role in ensuring that these consortial 
 efforts help us to further the goals of the OA movement by enhancing 
 the accessibility of OA content and not just that of commercial 
 publishers and content providers.

  ORCID itself is not an open access initiative. It's a step backwards.


  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel
  http://authorprofile.org/pkr1
   skype: thomaskrichel 
___
GOAL mailing list
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

[GOAL] Re: Thank you Jeffrey Beall!

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Paul,



Here are a few examples:



*   http://publishopenaccess.blogspot.com/

*   http://antiviralsantiretrovirals.edublogs.org/2012/12/18/omics-blog/

*  
http://editorjccr.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/open-access-publishing-usd-5000-is-enough-to-remove-your-publishers-name-from-bealls-list/



Thank you for your kind words.



Jeffrey Beall



-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Uhlir, Paul
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:49 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); scholc...@ala.org T.F.
Cc: SOAF post; BOAI Forum post
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Thank you Jeffrey Beall!



Kudos to Jeffrey Beall, and regrets for the negative spam you have endured. 
Jeffrey, even though it may create some extra traffic for everyone on this 
listserv, may I suggest that you forward at least examples of the offending 
spam attacks, so that we are all well informed and can perhaps help or 
independently evaluate those messages. I realize that I am asking for something 
that everyone may not appreciate nor that may be acceptable to members of this 
list or to the moderator, but nothing serves to expose darkness like light. In 
any case, keep up the good work, despite the efforts to curtail it!



Best wishes,

Paul





From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison [hgmor...@sfu.ca]

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:19 PM

To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); 
scholc...@ala.orgmailto:scholc...@ala.org T.F.

Cc: SOAF post; BOAI Forum post

Subject: [GOAL]  Thank you Jeffrey Beall!



My reaction: thank you, Jeffrey Beall! - both for the important service of 
tracking those predatory open access publishers, and for exposing this attempt 
to discredit you. Bravo!



Further applause on IJPE:

http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/12/a-huge-thank-you-to-jeffrey-beall.html



best,



Heather Morrison, PhD

The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com





On 18-Dec-12, at 9:48 AM, Peter Suber wrote:



 [Forwarding from Jeffrey Beall, via the ScholComm list.  --Peter

 Suber.]





 Colleagues,







 I am the author of Scholarly Open Access, a blog that includes lists

 of questionable scholarly publishers and questionable independent

 journals.







 I'm writing to let people that I've been the victim of an ongoing,

 organized attempt to discredit me and my blog.







 Specifically, I've been a victim of email spoofing, in which someone

 is sending emails that appear to be from me but really are not.







 One of the spoofed emails is an offer to reevaluate a publisher's

 presence on my list for five thousand dollars. These emails try to

 make it look like I am extorting money from publishers.







 Also, someone is going around setting up new blogs that reprint the

 spoofed email or that include contrived quotes from scholars. An

 example is here.







 Additionally, someone is leaving negative comments about me and my

 work on various OA-related blogs and websites, writing in the names of

 people prominent in the OA movement. One place this occurred was in

 the comments section of my October Nature piece. The publisher has

 removed these spurious statements and closed further comments.







 I'm going to continue my work identifying questionable and predatory

 publishers as best I can. Because many of the publishers on my list

 are true criminals, it's no surprise that they would respond in a

 criminal way.







 I realize my blog is not perfect; I've made mistakes and have tried to

 learn from them. Many of you have given me valuable advice, and I have

 tried to implement the good advice as best I could. I have not engaged

 in any of the activities that they are trying to frame me with.







 Thanks for your understanding.







 Jeffrey







 Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor



 Scholarly Initiatives Librarian

 Auraria Library

 University of Colorado Denver

 1100 Lawrence St.

 Denver, Colo.  80204 USA

 (303) 556-5936

 jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edumailto:jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu







 image001.jpg













 ___

 GOAL mailing list

 GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org

 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal



___

GOAL mailing list

GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org

http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

___

GOAL mailing list

GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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

[GOAL] Re: Simple Explanation of the Green Road

[Beall, Jeffrey]

I found the advice given in this explanation to be cavalier. The document 
says,



Don't let a lawyer worry you with tales of copyright infringement lawsuits. No 
publisher has ever sued a university over making their academics' papers 
available. At most you need to respond to take-down requests by setting 
access to closed instead of open (never remove a paper from the IR, just set 
its access as closed, unless the paper is formally withdrawn by the journal for 
academic misconduct).



Professor Adams, is this the type of practice you teach your students in your 
business ethics classes?



I work at a state-sponsored university, and here we are obliged to respect the 
existing laws. We also want to maintain good working relationships with 
publishers and to set a good example for our students. We don't do business 
like this.



I would encourage people to reject Professor Adams' insolent 
advicehttp://www.a-cubed.info/OA/.



Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu

[cid:image001.jpg@01CD9A46.1F1C0290]






-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 6:11 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Simple Explanation of the Green Road





Having written too many emails individually to people explaining the Green Road 
to Open Access and what I see as the optimum route and the errors various 
universities make in attempting to implement the Green Road, I was moved to 
write up a simple guide on my web site. Should you agree with the approach, 
please feel free to refer people to this guide.



http://www.a-cubed.info/OA/



--

Professor Andrew A Adams  
a...@meiji.ac.jpmailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp

Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and Deputy Director 
of the Centre for Business Information Ethics

Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/





___

GOAL mailing list

GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org

http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
inline: image001.jpg___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Beall, Jeffrey]

I think platinum open-access involves publishers and their journals or very 
often single journals, but green open-access is essentially self-archiving, 
including self-archiving of previously published stuff, usually in an 
institutional or disciplinary repository. 

Here's an example of what I would call a platinum open-access journal:

Journal of Library Innovation = http://www.libraryinnovation.org/

--Jeffrey Beall



-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Leslie Carr
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:35 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for 
open access

Is platinum effectively the same as green?

Sent from my iPad

On 26 Jul 2012, at 14:12, Beall, Jeffrey jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu wrote:

 I make the distinction between gold open-access and platinum open-access. 
 
Author fees + free to reader = gold open access
No author fees + free to reader = platinum open access
 
 This discussion, I think, demonstrates that this distinction is significant 
 and worthy of a separate appellation. 
 
 
 Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Associate Professor Auraria 
 Library University of Colorado Denver
 1100 Lawrence St.
 Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
 (303) 556-5936
 jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu
 
 -Original Message-
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Reckling, Falk, Dr.
 Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:53 AM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the 
 dash for open access
 
 
 I think there is still a misunderstanding with Gold OA. Running a OA journal 
 does not necesserily mean to charges article fees!
 
 Take Economics as an example: meanwhile there are some good OA 
 journals, most of them are new but with very prominent advisory boards 
 (which is a good predictor of being successful in the long run)
 
 a) E-conomics (institutional funding):
 http://www.economics-ejournal.org/
 
 b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): 
 http://econtheory.org/
 
 c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding):
 http://journals.iza.org/
 
 d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now 
 society based funding):
 http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php
 
 All of them are without APCs, and that model also works in many other fields. 
 
 What is needed is a very good editorial board and a basic funding by an 
 institution/society, or by a consortium of institutions or by a charity or ...
 
 Or why not considering a megajournal in the Humanities and apply a 
 clever business model as PEERJ tries it right now in the Life 
 Science?: http://peerj.com/
 
 In the end, it is up to the community to develop models which fit their needs 
 ...
 
 Best Falk
 
 
 
 
 Am 26.07.2012 um 12:09 schrieb l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk:
 
 The question isn't whether they're free or not, but whether they play 
 major roles as venues and outlets for important Humanities 
 scholarship.  And also it's still the case that traditional print 
 journals involve long print cues and delays in publication.  And also 
 it's the case that university libraries paying ridiculous 
 subscription charges for journals in the Sciences have less funding 
 for monographs (still the gold standard in Humanities), and even put 
 pressure on Humanities to cut their journals.
 Finally, there is the concern that the current move to gold OA with 
 pages charges, etc., will adversely affect Humanities scholars.
 So, please, no snap and simple replies.  Let's engage the problems.
 Larry Hurtado
 
 Quoting Jan Szczepanski jan.szczepansk...@gmail.com on Wed, 25 Jul
 2012 22:53:06 +0200:
 
 Is more than sixteen thousand free e-journals in the humanities and 
 social sciences of any importance in this discussion?
 
 http://www.scribd.com/Jan%20Szczepanski
 
 Jan
 
 
 
 2012/7/25  l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk:
 Webster concisely articulates the concerns that I briefly mooted a 
 few days ago.
 Larry Hurtado
 
 Quoting Omega Alpha Open Access oa.openacc...@gmail.com on Wed, 
 25 Jul 2012 11:03:30 -0400:
 
 Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open 
 access http://wp.me/p20y83-no
 
 Nice article this morning by Peter Webster on the Research 
 Fortnight website entitled Humanities left behind in the dash for 
 open access.
 http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_newstemplat
 e =rr_2colview=articlearticleId=1214091 Check it out.
 
 Webster observes that much of the current conversation around the 
 growth of open access focuses on the sciences and use of an 
 author-pays business model. He feels inadequate attention in the 
 conversation has been given to the unique needs of humanities 
 scholarship, and why it may be harder for humanist scholars to 
 embrace open access based on the author-pays model

[GOAL] Re: [BOAI] Meaning of Open Access

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Jan:

Not all articles in the Biomed Central journals are open access; some require a 
subscription.

An example is BMC's Genome Biology  http://genomebiology.com/content/13/4  
which is a hybrid journal with both toll access and open access articles.


Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Assistant Professor
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu

[cid:image001.jpg@01CD2DBB.32CC3370]



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Jan Velterop
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:24 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: [GOAL] Re: [BOAI] Meaning of Open Access

Andras,

Whether Open Access relates to an individual article or to a whole journal 
depends on whether the journal calls itself an OA journal or whether the OA 
label is just attached to a few individual articles. Among the best examples we 
have are PLoS and BMC journals, all the articles in which are covered by a 
CC-BY licence, meaning they are full, BOAI-compliant Open Access, and you can 
do pretty much anything with them, including redistribute the whole journal, 
and converting articles into different formats, as long as you properly 
acknowledge the original author(s) whenever possible.

Depending on the reason why you text-mine, of course, the value of text-mining 
increases, on the whole, with the size of the body of literature that you can 
text-mine. A whole journal is better than a single article, but a large amount 
of articles from different journals on the same topic is better still.

The BOAI definition of Open Access allows text-mining. The appropriate licence 
covering BOAI-compliant Open Access is CC-BY.

Jan


On 9 May 2012, at 12:34, Andras Holl wrote:


Dear All,

The thing whether Open Access relates to an individual article
or a whole journal is not clear. Does libre OA mean that anyone
is free to redistribute the whole journal, or only one, a few article?
Text mining rights are meaningful only for the whole journal.
My opinion that they should be granted - the problem I have
is not with the rights. It is with the practice. The OA journal
I manage has every article available in several formats - LaTeX, PS. PDF, HTML -
some of these are generated on-the-fly, some static. Indiscriminate
harvesting is a prolem for me. What I would like to have is
some method, which is a mix of robots.txt and htaccess,
maybe with a touch of legal content about the scope of
possible use of harvested content.

So, in my opinion, the real worls situation is even more complex
than either gratis or libre. There are many flavors of OA, and
I do not think that sticking to the bOAI definition would do much good.

Andras Holl

On Wed, 9 May 2012 06:37:55 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote
 ** Cross-Posted **

 On 2012-05-09, at 4:12 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:


 I would favour doing away with both the terms 'libre OA' and 'gratis OA'.

 Open Access suffices. It's the 'open' that says it all. Especially if it is 
 made

 clear that OA means BOAI-compliant OA in the context of scholarly

 research literature.


 I don't doubt that Jan would like to do away with the terms libre and gratis 
 OA.
 He has been arguing all along that free online access is not open access,
 ever since 2003 on the American Scientist Open Access Forum:

 http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#msg6478

 This would mean that my subversive proposal of 1994 was not really a
 proposal for open access  and that the existing open access mandates
 and policies of funders and institutions worldwide are not really open access
 mandates or policies.
 http://roarmap.eprints.org/

 It is in large part for this reason that in 2008 Peter Suber and I proposed
 the terms gratis and libre open access to ensure that the term
 open access retained its meaning, and to make explicit the two
 distinct conditions involved: free online access (gratis OA) and
 certain re-use rights (libre OA):

 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/strong-and-weak-oa.html

 For Peter Murray-Rust's crusade for journal article text-mining rights,
 apart from reiterating my full agreement that these are highly important
 and highly desirable and even urgent in certain fields, I would like
 to note that -- as PM-R has stated -- neither gratis OA nor libre OA
 is necessary for the kinds of text-mining rights he is seeking. They
 can be had via a special licensing agreement from the publisher.

 There is no ambiguity there: The text-mining rights can be granted
 even if the articles themselves are not made openly accessible,
 free for all.

 And, as Richard Poynder has just pointed out, publishers are
 quite aware of (perhaps even relieved with) this option, with
 Elsevier lately launching an experiment in it:

 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2012-May/000433.html

 This makes it clear that the text-mining rights PM-R 

[GOAL] Re: [BOAI] Meaning of Open Access

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Jan:

 

Not all articles in the Biomed Central journals are open access; some require a
subscription.

 

An example is BMC's Genome Biology  http://genomebiology.com/content/13/4 
which is a hybrid journal with both toll access and open access articles.  

 

 

Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Assistant Professor
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu

 

Description: 
Description:http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/departments/oiuc/brand/downloads/branddownloads/b
randdocuments/Logos-E-mail%20Signatures/emailSig_2campus.png

 

 

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Jan Velterop
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:24 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: [GOAL] Re: [BOAI] Meaning of Open Access

 

Andras,

 

Whether Open Access relates to an individual article or to a whole journal
depends on whether the journal calls itself an OA journal or whether the OA
label is just attached to a few individual articles. Among the best examples we
have are PLoS and BMC journals, all the articles in which are covered by a CC-BY
licence, meaning they are full, BOAI-compliant Open Access, and you can do
pretty much anything with them, including redistribute the whole journal, and
converting articles into different formats, as long as you properly acknowledge
the original author(s) whenever possible.

 

Depending on the reason why you text-mine, of course, the value of text-mining
increases, on the whole, with the size of the body of literature that you can
text-mine. A whole journal is better than a single article, but a large amount
of articles from different journals on the same topic is better still.

 

The BOAI definition of Open Access allows text-mining. The appropriate licence
covering BOAI-compliant Open Access is CC-BY.

 

Jan

 

 

On 9 May 2012, at 12:34, Andras Holl wrote:



Dear All,

The thing whether Open Access relates to an individual article
or a whole journal is not clear. Does libre OA mean that anyone
is free to redistribute the whole journal, or only one, a few article?
Text mining rights are meaningful only for the whole journal.
My opinion that they should be granted - the problem I have
is not with the rights. It is with the practice. The OA journal
I manage has every article available in several formats - LaTeX, PS. PDF, HTML -
some of these are generated on-the-fly, some static. Indiscriminate
harvesting is a prolem for me. What I would like to have is
some method, which is a mix of robots.txt and htaccess,
maybe with a touch of legal content about the scope of
possible use of harvested content.

So, in my opinion, the real worls situation is even more complex
than either gratis or libre. There are many flavors of OA, and
I do not think that sticking to the bOAI definition would do much good.

Andras Holl

On Wed, 9 May 2012 06:37:55 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote
 ** Cross-Posted **

 On 2012-05-09, at 4:12 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:


 I would favour doing away with both the terms 'libre OA' and 'gratis OA'.


   Open Access suffices. It's the 'open' that says it all. Especially
  if it is made


   clear that OA means BOAI-compliant OA in the context of scholarly


   research literature.



 I don't doubt that Jan would like to do away with the terms libre and gratis
OA. 
 He has been arguing all along that free online access is not open access,
 ever since 2003 on the American Scientist Open Access Forum:

 http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#msg6478

 This would mean that my subversive proposal of 1994 was not really a 
 proposal for open access  and that the existing open access mandates 
 and policies of funders and institutions worldwide are not really open 
 access 
 mandates or policies.
 http://roarmap.eprints.org/

 It is in large part for this reason that in 2008 Peter Suber and I proposed 
 the terms gratis and libre open access to ensure that the term
 open access retained its meaning, and to make explicit the two 
 distinct conditions involved: free online access (gratis OA) and
 certain re-use rights (libre OA):

 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/strong-and-weak-oa.html

 For Peter Murray-Rust's crusade for journal article text-mining rights,
 apart from reiterating my full agreement that these are highly important
 and highly desirable and even urgent in certain fields, I would like
 to note that -- as PM-R has stated -- neither gratis OA nor libre OA
 is necessary for the kinds of text-mining rights he is seeking. They
 can be had via a special licensing agreement from the publisher.

 There is no ambiguity there: The text-mining rights can be granted
 even if the articles themselves are not made openly accessible,
 free for all. 

 And, as Richard Poynder has just pointed out, publishers are
 quite aware 

[GOAL] Re: Hindawi grows to more than 5,000 submissions in March

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Paul,

How many of those 5,400 submissions will be accepted for publication?

Thanks,

Jeffrey Beall

-Original Message-
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
Of Paul Peters
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 8:58 AM
To: goal at eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Hindawi grows to more than 5,000 submissions in March

Press Release
April 2, 2012

Hindawi Publishing Corporation is pleased to announce that it has received over 
5,400 submissions in March across its portfolio of 300+ open access journals, 
which represents an increase of 80% from March 2011.

I am incredibly pleased with the growth that we have seen in submissions to 
our open access journals over the past year, said Paul Peters, Hindawi's Head 
of Business Development. In addition to the strong growth of our more 
well-established journals, several of which are expected to receive upwards of 
1,000 submissions this year, we are happy to see that many of the newer 
journals that we launched over the past few years have already built incredible 
momentum and are on track to becoming leading journals within their respective 
fields.

In explaining the reasons for the company's growth, Hindawi's Editorial 
Manager, Mohamed Hamdy, emphasized the importance of the increasing coverage of 
Hindawi's journals by the major Abstracting and Indexing services. As the 
coverage of our journals within PubMed, the Web of Science, Scopus, and a 
number of subject specific databases has grown over the past year, we have seen 
a very positive reaction from our authorship. 
We now have more than 30 journals indexed in the Web of Science, and close to 
150 journals indexed in PubMed, and as the indexing of our journals continues 
to expand I expect that we will see very strong growth in the submissions to 
these journals.

In addition to the journals that are hosted on the company's main website 
(http://www.hindawi.com/), Hindawi has been developing a number of independent 
journal platforms over the past two years, each with a specific editorial 
focus. The first of these platforms was the ISRN series (http://www.isrn.com/), 
which launched in mid-2010 with the aim of providing  a fast-track review 
process for all submitted manuscripts, and by March of 2012 the ISRN series 
accounted for 20% of Hindawi's total submissions. More recently Hindawi has 
launched two new platforms including Datasets International 
(http://www.datasets.com/), which focuses on the publication of Dataset Papers 
as well as the underlying datasets that they describe, and Conference Papers in 
Science (http://www.cpis.com/), which publishes peer-reviewed manuscripts that 
arise from conference presentations and workshops. While it is still too early 
to evaluate the success of these new initiatives, Hindawi is hopeful that these 
platforms will be able to build significant momentum over the coming year.

For more information please contact:

Paul Peters
Head of Business Development
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Email: paul.peters at hindawi.com

Hindawi Publishing Corporation is an academic publisher of more than 300 peer 
reviewed, open access journals covering a wide range of subjects in science, 
technology, medicine, and the social sciences. The company web site is located 
at http://www.hindawi.com/.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal