[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
I share with members of this list, some information provided by Abel Packer, Coordinator of the SciELO program. I copy him in this message .It is correct that a few journals included in SciELO collections charge APC´s. But only very few of the 1.147 journals included in SciELO from scholarly and academic publishers of 15 countries. Abel provided this update about SciELO: (a) SciELO journals are funded by a mix of sources, including their publishers (scientific societies and research institutions), government programs, sponsors and article processing charges. APC is being used mainly in Brazil, but for less than 5% of the 280 indexed journals; (b) APC are charged by journals not by SciELO. (c) the SciELO internal cost of indexing each article and building indicators for Brazilian journals varies from 90 to 120 dollars depending on the exchange rate, and this cost is covered by government funds through research agencies (d) SciELO publishing platform is progressively providing all publishing services that can be used optionally by journals. Among the services SciELO will provide journals an options to collect APC. any further questions can be addressed to him at SciELO abel.packer@ gmail.com best wishes, Dominique 2013/12/17 Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.com On 17 December 2013 16:32, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote: This is a somewhat incomplete, if not flawed argument. 1. The prices mentioned by Graham are just two examples (out of 280 current journals in SciELO Brazil). One reads further in the same blog post : “In the case of SciELO Brazil, the average per article cost of publication is around US $130”. Does that represent US $130 cost to the author, or US $130 cost for the journal? There are cases of subsidized journals on SciELO, in which case you then also have to look at where that funding is coming from, to consider the overall cost to the public purse of publishing on SciELO. Without knowing more detail (and we have to accept that and make allowances for incomplete information on both sides of the fence), it's not unreasonable to suggest that the higher priced APCs for SciELO journals are more indicative of the true underlying publishing costs. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Dominique Babini Coordinadora Área Acceso Abierto al Conocimiento CLACSO-Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales bab...@clacso.edu.ar @dominiquebabini Estados Unidos 1168 (C1101AAX) Buenos Aires, Argentina Tel.: (54-11) 4304-9145/9505 Fax: (54-11) 4305-0875 www.clacso.org bab...@clacso.edu.ar ___ 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
As I say, I think I did, accidentally, coin the phrase 'hybrid journals'. As Sally notes, I saw it as a low-risk way for publishers to move subscription journals to open access. It is amazing (and perhaps slight depressing) to think that the article I published describing the model is now ten years old: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2003/0016/0003/art1(freely available) But while the phrase may have been mine, the model wasn't - it was developed from that used by the Journals of the Entomological Society of America. What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but which I only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model: 1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC. It is clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for born-OA journals. But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue from subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay it then it is just a bonus. Of course, this helps explains the low take-up rate for OA in most hybrid journals - why pay a hight fee when you can get published in that journal for free? And if you really want OA then best go to a born-OA journal which is cheaper and may well be of comparable quality. 2. There is little pressure on the publisher to reduce subscription prices. Of course, everybody says 'we don't double dip', but this is almost impossible to verify and from a subscriber's point of view very difficult to police. I don't know of any institution, for example, in a multi-year big deal who has received a rebate based on OA hybrid content. So, the hybrid model has been a disappointment to me and I have some sympathy for those funders that refuse to pay APCs for hybrid journals. A position Stuart Shieber has argued eloquently and compellingly for (see, for example, the relevant section in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/07/10/ecumenical-open-access-and-the-finch-report-principles/). I was very struck by the recommendation in the recent UK House of Commons BIS report that hybrid APCs should not be funded. Unless we see real movement from publishers to address in a transparent and local manner the double-dipping issue then that is a position that, despite my previous advocacy for the hybrid model, I think I'll increasingly support. David On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:14, Sally Morris wrote: Actually, as far as I can recall, the idea of 'hybrid journals' was first proposed by David Prosser of SPARC Europe in 2003, as a way for publishers to move towards 100% conversion to OA David will no doubt say if this is not so Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon Sent: 16 December 2013 20:29 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +, Graham Triggs a écrit : On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority of the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to have been - by scholars. Who introduced hybrid journals? who introduced delayed open access - an oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's universal access? etc. etc. The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their business models for as long as possible. Fairly quick indeed! face-smile.png [snip (because irrelevant] Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At which point: 1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, advertising... 2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs. Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse. Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many countries (Canada, for example
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
Citing a blog post (http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/18/how-much-does-it-cost-to-publish-in-open-access ), Graham Triggs wrote: publishing in SciELO journals ranges from US $660 in one subsidized journal, to US $900 for foreign authors in another journal. US $900 puts it in a similar ballpark to the lower prices of the commercial publishers. This is a somewhat incomplete, if not flawed argument. 1. The prices mentioned by Graham are just two examples (out of 280 current journals in SciELO Brazil). One reads further in the same blog post : In the case of SciELO Brazil, the average per article cost of publication is around US $130. 2. The two examples are both medical journals, which tend to have higher APCs, for instance, $2900 for PLoS Medicine (more than twice than PloS One). Marc Couture ___ 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
On 17 December 2013 16:32, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote: This is a somewhat incomplete, if not flawed argument. 1. The prices mentioned by Graham are just two examples (out of 280 current journals in SciELO Brazil). One reads further in the same blog post : “In the case of SciELO Brazil, the average per article cost of publication is around US $130”. Does that represent US $130 cost to the author, or US $130 cost for the journal? There are cases of subsidized journals on SciELO, in which case you then also have to look at where that funding is coming from, to consider the overall cost to the public purse of publishing on SciELO. Without knowing more detail (and we have to accept that and make allowances for incomplete information on both sides of the fence), it's not unreasonable to suggest that the higher priced APCs for SciELO journals are more indicative of the true underlying publishing costs. G ___ 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
You're right: we need more information before drawing any conclusion. I found this in a 2009 paper in the Canadian Journal of Higher Education (in a special issue to which J. C. Guédon contributed, by the way): http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/cjhe/article/view/479/504 ...if the complete editorial flow, from the reception of manuscripts, the peer-review process, editing, and the online SciELO publication, is taken into account, the total cost for each new SciELO Brazilian collection article is estimated to be between US$200 and $600. This seems to be a more meaningful figure, for this discussion, than the cost to authors. It's still much lower than the average APC of $1350 for commercial publishers (thus cost + profit), according to Solomon Bjork 2012 paper in JASIST (postprint available: http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/preprint.pdf). Marc Couture De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Graham Triggs Envoyé : 17 décembre 2013 16:18 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List On 17 December 2013 16:32, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.camailto:marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote: This is a somewhat incomplete, if not flawed argument. 1. The prices mentioned by Graham are just two examples (out of 280 current journals in SciELO Brazil). One reads further in the same blog post : In the case of SciELO Brazil, the average per article cost of publication is around US $130. Does that represent US $130 cost to the author, or US $130 cost for the journal? There are cases of subsidized journals on SciELO, in which case you then also have to look at where that funding is coming from, to consider the overall cost to the public purse of publishing on SciELO. Without knowing more detail (and we have to accept that and make allowances for incomplete information on both sides of the fence), it's not unreasonable to suggest that the higher priced APCs for SciELO journals are more indicative of the true underlying publishing costs. G ___ 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
On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access, you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has done its utmost to confuse issues by throwing all kinds of new terms. Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority of the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to have been - by scholars. The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their business models for as long as possible. Finally, the focus of OA is not to destroy the publishing industry. Saying this amounts to some form of paranoia. Some OA advocates, including myself, are very angry at some members of the publishing industry, but these are individuals, not the OA movement. Some OA supporters try to imagine alternatives to the present publishing system. It's kind of difficult to say that somebody outside of the publishing industry is paranoid in stating that some sections of the OA movement are attempting to destroy the publishing industry. You might say that it is ignorant to believe that some OA supporters are merely speculating on alternatives, without hoping - attempting, even - to engineer a situation that destroys the publishing industry. Some os us strongly feel that research communication comes first, and the publishing industry a distant second, so that the publishing industry should not consider scholarly communication as if it were a gold mine ready to be pillaged at will (45% profit, to my mind, is pillaging, and pillaging a lot of public money, to boot). But perhaps I am a little too precise here... [image: :-)] Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At which point: 1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, advertising... 2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs. Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse. Finally, I would like you to think seriously and deeply about what Jacinto Dávila wrote in response to you. Developing nations are hit in a number of nasty ways by a communication system that seems to think that knowledge is not fit for Third World brains, or that Third World brains are good enough only if they focus on problems defined by rich countries. Make no mistake about this: the anger in those parts of the world where 80% of humanity lives is rising and what the consequences of this anger will be, I cannot foretell, but they will likely be dire and profound. If I were in your shoes, I would be scared. From free and low cost access programmes, through APC waivers, and charitable partnerships, the publishing industry does a lot more for developing nations than the picture you are painting. Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No. If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry. Or you could try and ignore the industry entirely. But simply depositing research in institutional repositories does not necessarily solve developing nation's access problems, and does not necessarily solve their publishing problems. G face-smile.png___ 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
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.comwrote: On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access, you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has done its utmost to confuse issues by throwing all kinds of new terms. Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority of the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to have been - by scholars. There are probably 20 different terms introduced by publishers. They include: Author choice Free choice Free content and variants. All are imprecisely defined and a cynic might say intended to confuse. And there is blatant misrepresentation: Fully open Access (to describe CC-NC-ND with a list of restrictions, all-rights-reserved and huge charges from RightsLink including for teaching.) The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their business models for as long as possible. Finally, the focus of OA is not to destroy the publishing industry. Saying this amounts to some form of paranoia. Some OA advocates, including myself, are very angry at some members of the publishing industry, but these are individuals, not the OA movement. Some OA supporters try to imagine alternatives to the present publishing system. It's kind of difficult to say that somebody outside of the publishing industry is paranoid in stating that some sections of the OA movement are attempting to destroy the publishing industry. You might say that it is ignorant to believe that some OA supporters are merely speculating on alternatives, without hoping - attempting, even - to engineer a situation that destroys the publishing industry. Some os us strongly feel that research communication comes first, and the publishing industry a distant second, so that the publishing industry should not consider scholarly communication as if it were a gold mine ready to be pillaged at will (45% profit, to my mind, is pillaging, and pillaging a lot of public money, to boot). But perhaps I am a little too precise here... [image: :-)] Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At which point: 1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, advertising... 2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs. Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse. Finally, I would like you to think seriously and deeply about what Jacinto Dávila wrote in response to you. Developing nations are hit in a number of nasty ways by a communication system that seems to think that knowledge is not fit for Third World brains, or that Third World brains are good enough only if they focus on problems defined by rich countries. Make no mistake about this: the anger in those parts of the world where 80% of humanity lives is rising and what the consequences of this anger will be, I cannot foretell, but they will likely be dire and profound. If I were in your shoes, I would be scared. From free and low cost access programmes, through APC waivers, and charitable partnerships, the publishing industry does a lot more for developing nations than the picture you are painting. Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No. If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry. Or you could try and ignore the industry entirely. But simply depositing research in institutional repositories does not necessarily solve developing nation's access problems, and does not necessarily solve their publishing problems. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 face-smile.png___ 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
Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +, Graham Triggs a écrit : On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority of the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to have been - by scholars. Who introduced hybrid journals? who introduced delayed open access - an oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's universal access? etc. etc. The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their business models for as long as possible. Fairly quick indeed! :-) [snip (because irrelevant] Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At which point: 1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, advertising... 2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs. Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse. Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many countries (Canada, for example, or most European countries) to justify my anger. As for point 2, it is quite laughable. Why does not Elsevier reduce its profit rate then? The answer is that each journal is a small monopoly in itself. And in monopoly situations, what is the incentive to reduce pricing? From free and low cost access programmes, through APC waivers, and charitable partnerships, the publishing industry does a lot more for developing nations than the picture you are painting. Having looked fairly closely at programmes like HINARI, I beg to differ. The publishing industry is very creative when it comes to growing fig leaves. Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No. It would be a lot cheaper if the industry got out of the way. If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry. I would rather see funders support publicly supported efforts such as Scielo or Redalyc in Latin America. The publishing industry does not need yet another subsidy to begin expanding its potential markets. Or you could try and ignore the industry entirely. But simply depositing research in institutional repositories does not necessarily solve developing nation's access problems, and does not necessarily solve their publishing problems. Your last point is correct, at least until now. Laws such as the one recently passed in Argentina may help further. But you are right: in developing nations, the best way is to avoid the industry entirely and develop evaluation methods that are a little more sophisticated than the impact factor misapplied to individuals. Jean-Claude Guédon ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal attachment: face-smile.png___ 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
Who introduced hybrid journals? I'm not 100% sure, but that may have been me! It seemed like a good idea at the time... David On 16 Dec 2013, at 20:28, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +, Graham Triggs a écrit : On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority of the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to have been - by scholars. Who introduced hybrid journals? who introduced delayed open access - an oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's universal access? etc. etc. The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their business models for as long as possible. Fairly quick indeed! face-smile.png [snip (because irrelevant] Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At which point: 1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, advertising... 2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs. Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse. Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many countries (Canada, for example, or most European countries) to justify my anger. As for point 2, it is quite laughable. Why does not Elsevier reduce its profit rate then? The answer is that each journal is a small monopoly in itself. And in monopoly situations, what is the incentive to reduce pricing? From free and low cost access programmes, through APC waivers, and charitable partnerships, the publishing industry does a lot more for developing nations than the picture you are painting. Having looked fairly closely at programmes like HINARI, I beg to differ. The publishing industry is very creative when it comes to growing fig leaves. Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No. It would be a lot cheaper if the industry got out of the way. If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry. I would rather see funders support publicly supported efforts such as Scielo or Redalyc in Latin America. The publishing industry does not need yet another subsidy to begin expanding its potential markets. Or you could try and ignore the industry entirely. But simply depositing research in institutional repositories does not necessarily solve developing nation's access problems, and does not necessarily solve their publishing problems. Your last point is correct, at least until now. Laws such as the one recently passed in Argentina may help further. But you are right: in developing nations, the best way is to avoid the industry entirely and develop evaluation methods that are a little more sophisticated than the impact factor misapplied to individuals. Jean-Claude Guédon ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal ___ 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: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
Actually, as far as I can recall, the idea of 'hybrid journals' was first proposed by David Prosser of SPARC Europe in 2003, as a way for publishers to move towards 100% conversion to OA David will no doubt say if this is not so Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk _ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon Sent: 16 December 2013 20:29 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +, Graham Triggs a écrit : On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority of the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to have been - by scholars. Who introduced hybrid journals? who introduced delayed open access - an oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's universal access? etc. etc. The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their business models for as long as possible. Fairly quick indeed! :-) [snip (because irrelevant] Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At which point: 1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, advertising... 2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs. Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse. Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many countries (Canada, for example, or most European countries) to justify my anger. As for point 2, it is quite laughable. Why does not Elsevier reduce its profit rate then? The answer is that each journal is a small monopoly in itself. And in monopoly situations, what is the incentive to reduce pricing? From free and low cost access programmes, through APC waivers, and charitable partnerships, the publishing industry does a lot more for developing nations than the picture you are painting. Having looked fairly closely at programmes like HINARI, I beg to differ. The publishing industry is very creative when it comes to growing fig leaves. Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No. It would be a lot cheaper if the industry got out of the way. If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry. I would rather see funders support publicly supported efforts such as Scielo or Redalyc in Latin America. The publishing industry does not need yet another subsidy to begin expanding its potential markets. Or you could try and ignore the industry entirely. But simply depositing research in institutional repositories does not necessarily solve developing nation's access problems, and does not necessarily solve their publishing problems. Your last point is correct, at least until now. Laws such as the one recently passed in Argentina may help further. But you are right: in developing nations, the best way is to avoid the industry entirely and develop evaluation methods that are a little more sophisticated than the impact factor misapplied to individuals. Jean-Claude Guédon ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal face-smile.png___ 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
On 16 December 2013 20:28, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Who introduced hybrid journals? who introduced delayed open access - an oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's universal access? etc. etc. Admittedly, universal access is somewhat confusing. As for delayed open access, then publishers themselves likely did not introduce it. Searching, I could not find any instances of publishers using the term. Although, there was an article 10 years ago by a publisher's association that mentioned it. It shouldn't be surprising that publishers may be very careful about how they cite terms like Open Access, because - unlike scholars debating the issue - they could actually be charged with false advertising if they misled people through incorrect use of the terms. And yes, if you take the whole definition of Open Access, which includes immediate, then delayed open access is an oxymoron, But the so can green open access (and certainly gratis open access), when by and large this does not provide a liberal licence as also defined by BOAI. Actually, you can find journals (such as RNA), who provide their delayed access content under a Creative Commons licence. Some would argue that is closer to Open Access than simply providing eyes-only access to content. Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse. Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many countries (Canada, for example, or most European countries) to justify my anger. As for point 2, it is quite laughable. Why does not Elsevier reduce its profit rate then? The answer is that each journal is a small monopoly in itself. And in monopoly situations, what is the incentive to reduce pricing? Correct, there is little competitive pressure to force publisher's to reduce the prices they charge. But for point 2, I never said that they reduce costs to consumers - e.g. the price. I said they reduce costs. *Their* costs. Aside from any competitive pressure [that currently doesn't exist] on prices, profit will always provide an incentive to commercial publishers to drive the underlying costs down. If you remove commercial interests from publishing, then there is little incentive to chase market share, and little incentive to reduce the underlying costs. And if provision of non-commercial publishing is [too] fragmented, then it won't benefit from economies of scale either. Like for like, service for service, the underlying costs for non-competitive, non-commercial publishing, will likely be higher than the underlying costs for commercial publishers. And there is no guarantee that they will be lower than the prices that commercial publishers charge [or would charge under an open access / APC business model]. Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No. It would be a lot cheaper if the industry got out of the way. This is speculation. Which may be right. In fact, it may well be right if you are comparing it to the current subscription market. But it's not guaranteed, and it's less likely to be true compared to APC-paid Open Access publishing. There are good reasons to believe that a truly competitive commercial market - involving for-profit publishers - would be cheaper than removing the commercial publishers. If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry. I would rather see funders support publicly supported efforts such as Scielo or Redalyc in Latin America. The publishing industry does not need yet another subsidy to begin expanding its potential markets. According to this: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/18/how-much-does-it-cost-to-publish-in-open-access/#.Uq-RWvRdV8E, publishing in SciELO journals ranges from US $660 in one subsidized journal, to US $900 for foreign authors in another journal. US $900 puts it in a similar ballpark to the lower prices of the commercial publishers. It's even more or less the same price that PLoS One should be, once you adjust for their 23% surplus. And this is whilst the the market [for Open Access publishing] is still small and not truly competitive. At that level, there is every reason to believe that commercial publishing could, at the low end, compete and better SciELO publishing for price, even whilst making a profit But then all funders need do is support publicly supported and commercial efforts on an equal basis - i.e. funding the APC to publish in either - and foster an environment that lets the market decide
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
that it is not fundamental in most scholars' minds. The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough): 1)The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying power' 2)It still seems curious to me (as to Beall) that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour which is considered be self-evidently beneficial to them Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both points?! ;-) Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk __ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Penny Andrews Sent: 12 December 2013 17:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List Sally, for many scholars (who do currently exist, not just in the future) textmining is their main research activity. Open licensing to do that unimpeded isn't some theoretical paradise, it's what they need right now to do their work. On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Sally Morris wrote: I agree completely that 'green' and 'gold' (however tightly or loosely defined) are the means, not the end But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it) Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk __ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop Sent: 12 December 2013 13:44 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI definition is an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you navigate the ocean of politics and vested interests of science publishing, you need to tack sometimes to make progress against the wind. That's permissible, even necessary. But it doesn't change the intended destination on which a good sailor keeps his focus. If that's religion, anything is. (Which may be the case :-)). One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the goal. Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with the overall course needed to reach the destination. In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course. To the goal of optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But that's a different discussion, I think Jan Velterop On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice by adhering so rigidly to tight definitions. A more relaxed focus on the end rather than the means might prove more appealing to the scholars for whose benefit it is supposed to exist Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 12 December 2013 08:37 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises CredibilityofBeall's List Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
I'm not sure why J-C thinks I'm against opening up access as widely as possible. I've never said that, and I don't think it. I want it to be sustainable, but whether that means any role for publishers as we know them only time will tell. I merely pointed out that Beall's article did, in fact, raise some worthwhile points... Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk _ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon Sent: 14 December 2013 20:53 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List Sally, Re-use and text mining are not the same thing. If I distribute my own articles in my own classroom, this is re-use and it relies only on eye contact, not machine-reading. That scholars are not yet focused on text-mining is simply the result, of inertia and force of habit. It is coming, but it is coming slowly. However, slowness does not prevent from thinking ahead, and many publishers certainly are. The executable paper bounty offered by Elsevier a couple of years ago shows another publishing angle which, for the moment, is not much on the scholars' radars, but it will be. Creating new societies of texts through various kinds of algorithms will be the same. Publishers are thinking about these issues. Some OA advocates are doing the same, not on the basis of surveys that tend to emphasize the past and the familiar, but rather in a future-looking perspective. Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access, you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has done its utmost to confuse issues by throwing all kinds of new terms. Muddying the waters and making the whole scene as illegible to regular scientists as is possible, all the while raising the fear of various legal interventions in the background (e.g. Michael Mabe recently in Berlin, alluding to the possibility of ant-trust actions in reaction to libraries coordinating too well for the industry's taste) cannot be treated as if it did not happen or had not been planned and engineered with one aim: slow down acceptance by all possible means, and try taking control of the movement to exploit it the publishers' way. Also, this is the first time that I see people being criticized simply for trying to be precise and unambiguous. I guess mathematicians must be extremely rigid, unreasonable, and uncooperative people... Finally, the focus of OA is not to destroy the publishing industry. Saying this amounts to some form of paranoia. Some OA advocates, including myself, are very angry at some members of the publishing industry, but these are individuals, not the OA movement. Some OA supporters try to imagine alternatives to the present publishing system. This means competition, I guess. But it may be that the publishing industry does not like competition, true competition. Some os us strongly feel that research communication comes first, and the publishing industry a distant second, so that the publishing industry should not consider scholarly communication as if it were a gold mine ready to be pillaged at will (45% profit, to my mind, is pillaging, and pillaging a lot of public money, to boot). But perhaps I am a little too precise here... :-) As for scholars, they do not have to be forced by mandates. Just tell them, as was done in Belgium, that you will be evaluated on the basis of only what is available in the right depository, and everything will fall into place. Now, researchers paid by universities or research centres cannot object to being evaluated, and to reasonable rules of evaluation such as deposit your publications in this box if you want to have them taken into account. Open access is beneficial to researchers, and that is obvious. But being obvious is not necessarily self-evident. To be obvious, one needs to look at studies on citation advantages, assess them, etc. But if local evaluations do not pay attention to these advantages, why should a scholar pay great attention so long as promotions and grants keep coming on the basis of fallacious metrics such as impact factors of journal titles. To meditate further on the distinction between obvious and self-evident, one only needs to rehearse all the arguments that were being adduced by opponents to both the American and French revolutions: democracy was obviously better than absolute monarchy, at least for most people; but the elites threw enough arguments into the air to make it less than self-evident for quite a while. Finally, I would like you to think seriously and deeply about what Jacinto Dávila wrote in response to you. Developing nations are hit in a number of nasty ways by a communication system that seems to think that knowledge is not fit
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
1)The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying power' No, the focus of OA is maximising the possible use and re-use of research outputs. Yes, the language can get 'hostile' but in general that is directed at those institutions and organisations that will apparently do anything they can to stop OA. Many of us have spent over 10 years describing how a publishing industry can flourish in an OA world. It may be that the participants in a future publishing industry are not the same as the participants in the publishing industry of the past, but there are few OA advocates (although they do exist) who believe that there is no role for publishers. 2)It still seems curious to me (as to Beall) that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour which is considered be self-evidently beneficial to them There are precedents for this, the classic one being authors depositing genome and sequence data. Everybody does it now as a matter of course and everybody see the benefits. But it didn't happen overnight because authors spontaneous changed their behaviour and started doing something that was self-evidently beneficial to them and their community. They did it because influencial and powerful journal editors decided that it would be a condition of publication. It was a mandate - we won't publish you unless you deposit the data. There are many cases where we need nudges to get us to do things that are to our advantage. David On 13 Dec 2013, at 13:14, Sally Morris wrote: I don't deny that re-use (e.g. text mining) is a valuable attribute of OA for some scholars; interestingly, however, it is rarely if ever mentioned in surveys which ask scholars for their own unprompted definition of OA. That suggests to me that it is not fundamental in most scholars' minds. The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough): 1)The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying power' 2)It still seems curious to me (as to Beall) that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour which is considered be self-evidently beneficial to them Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both points?! ;-) Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Penny Andrews Sent: 12 December 2013 17:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List Sally, for many scholars (who do currently exist, not just in the future) textmining is their main research activity. Open licensing to do that unimpeded isn't some theoretical paradise, it's what they need right now to do their work. On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Sally Morris wrote: I agree completely that 'green' and 'gold' (however tightly or loosely defined) are the means, not the end But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it) Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop Sent: 12 December 2013 13:44 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI definition is an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you navigate the ocean of politics and vested interests of science publishing, you need to tack sometimes to make progress against the wind. That's permissible, even necessary. But it doesn't change the intended destination on which a good sailor keeps his focus. If that's religion, anything is. (Which may be the case :-)). One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the goal. Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with the overall course needed to reach the destination. In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
Sally Morris wrote : I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough): 1)The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying power' 2)It still seems curious to me (as to Beall) that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour which is considered be self-evidently beneficial to them I think these two points have been extensively discussed, but if it needs repeating (of stated in different words), here is my take. 1) I know some OA advocates suggest that science could do without publishers and/or journals. But I don't share your opinion that this is to a considerable extent the focus of OA. I rather think the opposite : to me it seems to be a marginal position. But, absent any serious study of the OA movement, these are just that: opinions. By the way, what is missing in Beall's recent opinion piece can help define what one should do in such a study: define and categorize the actors (OA advocates???), analyze their discourse in forums, blog posts, etc. (text-mining?). That would certainly be interesting... 2) Scholars (well, in the academe) are forced by explicit and implicit rules (mostly self-imposed in a collective way) to do many things they would often prefer not doing, or doing less, because they don't like them or, more likely, because they don't have enough time to do them all: teaching large classes, publishing scholarly papers, supervising students, peer-reviewing (papers, grant proposals), sitting on committees, writing administrative reports, etc. etc. So they all do the same: they decide what they won't do according to what non-action entails the less dire or less immediate consequences. Thus I don't find it curious, but rather easy to understand that even if they know self-archiving is good for them, and would like to do it, it's simply one of the easiest things to defer when you look at your workload, unless of course there is a consequence. Thus the success of Liège (no publication considered for promotion or internal funding request if you don't self-archive) and NIH mandates (continuation grant awards not processed). Marc Couture ___ 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
Dear Sally, if you allow a view from the periphery, my answers below On 13 December 2013 08:44, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote: I don't deny that re-use (e.g. text mining) is a valuable attribute of OA for some scholars; interestingly, however, it is rarely if ever mentioned in surveys which ask scholars for their own unprompted definition of OA. That suggests to me that it is not fundamental in most scholars' minds. The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough): 1)The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying power' I have not seen any call for destructing anything. Just the opposite, there has been a attempt to rescue some of us who suffer for not being able to connect with you, central scientists, because 1) we can't normally afford subscriptions (so, we can't read you and stay updated) and 2) we can't include our contributions as we work in problems that are of no interest to whoever controls the editorial line of the so-called core of science. So, please, think again who is really destructive? 2)It still seems curious to me (as to Beall) that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour which is considered be self-evidently beneficial to them Mandates, as far as I have understood, are required to change current default, automatic behaviour. More scholars simply do not want to think of this and blindly assume that we all have equal access to knowledge. It is not the case. Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both points?! ;-) Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -- *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Penny Andrews *Sent:* 12 December 2013 17:04 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List Sally, for many scholars (who do currently exist, not just in the future) textmining is their main research activity. Open licensing to do that unimpeded isn't some theoretical paradise, it's what they need right now to do their work. On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Sally Morris wrote: I agree completely that 'green' and 'gold' (however tightly or loosely defined) are the means, not the end But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it) Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -- *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Jan Velterop *Sent:* 12 December 2013 13:44 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI definition is an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you navigate the ocean of politics and vested interests of science publishing, you need to tack sometimes to make progress against the wind. That's permissible, even necessary. But it doesn't change the intended destination on which a good sailor keeps his focus. If that's religion, anything is. (Which may be the case :-)). One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the goal. Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with the overall course needed to reach the destination. In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course. To the goal of optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But that's a different discussion, I think Jan Velterop On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice by adhering so rigidly to tight definitions. A more relaxed focus on the end rather than the means might prove more appealing to the scholars for whose benefit it is supposed to exist Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -- *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: I don't deny that re-use (e.g. text mining) is a valuable attribute of OA for some scholars; interestingly, however, it is rarely if ever mentioned in surveys which ask scholars for their own unprompted definition of OA. That suggests to me that it is not fundamental in most scholars' minds. That's primarily because many publishers ban in with legal contracts. So it's not done. That's changing - OA publishers are very positive (BMC, PLOS ...). There's a chicken-and-egg. Forbid textmining = no tools developed = no use = assertions nobody wants it. Also it is difficult to argue for something that is not widely deployed. Ask anyone in 1993 whether they want a (deliberately) fragile hypermedia system with a stupid name (Word - wide - Web) cooked up by a geek in CERN and they'd look in amazement. 1995 we believed in the web. It'll be the same with TextMining. The STM publishers individually and severally have tried to advocate against it but - at least in UK - Hargreaves has overridden this. In April 2014 Hargreaves legislation will come in. The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough): 1)The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying power' If an industry is pouring millions into lobbyists and systems to stop me and others developing TDM except under their complete control then, yes, I do regard it as a hostile act. Do I want to destroy it? Not per se, but I want it to change. STM is about 25 years behind the rest of the world. The double-column sighted-human-only PDF is a disgrace in the electronic century. There is no ability to innovate technically, socially, economically, politically or organizationally. We are stuck in C20-stasis. Every year that passes sees more pressure building up for change. Recent years suggest the industry is incapable of change so I predict that parts of it will crash heavily. Maybe some will adjust. For me the industry adds very little positive value. Academics can manage authoring, peer-review, production. For me the typesetting is negative value. We should get rid of it. We cannot now even trust parts of the industry. What's left? A badge for the author and their institution. Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both points?! ;-) You can interpret my paragraphs however you wish. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ 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
On 13 December 2013 13:14, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote: The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough): 1)The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying power' If you are talking about Open Access - as defined by BOAI - rather than public access, then no. I don't agree with you. To a large extent, real Open Access has come about in conjunction with, and driven by, the publishing industry - whether that is for-profit or non-profit players. The focus of some people who align themselves as being part of the open access movement - but don't necessarily demand Open Access in the defined sense - could be argued is the destruction of the publishing industry. Peter can state his own opinion, but I don't see him as necessarily being that anti-publisher. He is anti-restricted access, he is anti-giving up ownership. There are plenty of commercially operated publishers that provide compatible terms - generally for an upfront APC, instead of a toll-access subscription. 2)It still seems curious to me (as to Beall) that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour which is considered be self-evidently beneficial to them You could arguably say that access provided by repositories is not so self-evidently beneficial. Many won't hit access barriers, due to institutional subscriptions, so they have no need to seek out a repository alternative when the version of record is readily available. They aren't conferring any extra rights for text mining, re-use, etc. And they simply aren't that visible to them, so they don't necessarily see who and how they benefit. They may not even realise the repository exists where they can put their content. Imho, it's easier to demonstrate the benefit of Open Access publishing, and maybe more might be willing to choose that route. Except they see the cost of possibly not publishing with the leading journal. They see the cost of having to pay an APC. And it's not even as simple as saying make funds available to pay the APCs, because authors don't necessarily know that the funds are available, that they can claim, or how to. Wellcome Trust has already been down the route of simply making funds available to pay APCs, and it didn't make much difference to the take up - it took working with publishers to automatically route submissions that were associated with Wellcome funding to go via the Open Access route. So certainly more education, but possibly still a little coercion may always be required. G ___ 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
Sally, for many scholars (who do currently exist, not just in the
future) textmining is their main research activity. Open licensing to do
that unimpeded isn't some theoretical paradise, it's what they need right
now to do their work.
On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Sally Morris wrote:
I agree completely that 'green' and 'gold' (however tightly or loosely
defined) are the means, not the end
But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily
tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put
it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read
them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it)
Sally
Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU
Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286
Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk');
--
*From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'goal-boun...@eprints.org');
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'goal-boun...@eprints.org');]
*On Behalf Of *Jan Velterop
*Sent:* 12 December 2013 13:44
*To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
*Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly
CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List
But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI
definition is an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you
navigate the ocean of politics and vested interests of science publishing,
you need to tack sometimes to make progress against the wind. That's
permissible, even necessary. But it doesn't change the intended destination
on which a good sailor keeps his focus. If that's religion, anything is.
(Which may be the case :-)).
One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the goal.
Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with the overall
course needed to reach the destination.
In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course. To the goal of
optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But
that's a different discussion, I think
Jan Velterop
On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
wrote:
What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice by adhering
so rigidly to tight definitions. A more relaxed focus on the end rather
than the means might prove more appealing to the scholars for whose benefit
it is supposed to exist
Sally
Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU
Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286
Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
--
*From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
Behalf Of *David Prosser
*Sent:* 12 December 2013 08:37
*To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
*Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises
CredibilityofBeall's List
Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open Access
Initiative to show that re-use was an integral part of the original
definition of open access and not some later ('quasi-religeous') addition
as Sally avers. And by doing so he is betraying some type of religious
zeal?
One of the interesting aspect of the open access debate has been the
language. Those who argue against OA have been keen to paint OA advocates
as 'zealots', extremists, and impractical idealists. I've always felt that
such characterisation was an attempt to mask the paucity of argument.
David
___
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
Dear Jean Claude, As you mention putting Beall's list into responsible hands you might be interested in this this Dutch initiative, now on trial in The Netherlands and Austria: http://www.quom.eu . It aims at crowdsourcing OA journal quality assessment. It uses (multiple) scorecards to assess journal quality etc. Although it is crowdsourced, for the moment publishing scorecards is restricted to university affiliated scholars. Best, Jeroen Utrecht University Library From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon Sent: maandag 9 december 2013 23:28 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List One should never underestimate Jeffrey Beall's sense of humour... [:-)] And we all admire his capacity for predictions and categorizations. This said, I would love to hear about those who did the peer review for Beall's article. Are there any? If not, perhaps the journal Triple-C could qualify to enter a certain Jeffrey Beall's list, even though this decision might give rise to a conflict of disinterest... Of course, my earlier suggestion to fork Beall's list and place it in responsible hands (such as DOAJ supported by a consortium of libraries) would allow moving past the conflict of disinterest. If Woody Allen ever should come across this (admittedly picayune) discussion, it could lead to some really funny moments in a good movie. Oh, Jeffrey Beall, what would we do without you? How dull the world! Does it take a mile-high city to create this kind of thinking? Oxygen, anyone? Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 09 décembre 2013 à 14:45 -0700, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit : 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.orgmailto: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 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
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
Many thanks, Jeroen. I am asking around about ways to take up Beall's list and make it fully legitimate. It is a very useful list, but Beall's appears to have put himself in an untenable situation now, either by excess cleverness, or sheer awkwardness (no to say worse). Simply speaking, he has discredited himself. I will report to the list if any positive developments arise. Jean-Claude Guédon Le mardi 10 décembre 2013 à 10:28 +, Gerritsma, Wouter a écrit : http://www.qoam.eu/ -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal ___ 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
WOW ! And we did praise that man...! Terrible... Le 9 déc. 2013 à 16:12, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com a écrit : Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access. 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 – a product of the open-access movement – has poisoned scholarly communication, fostering research misconduct and the publishing of pseudo-science, but OA advocates refuse to recognize the growing problem. By instituting a policy of exchanging funds between researchers and publishers, the movement has fostered corruption on a grand scale. Instead of arguing for openaccess, we must determine and settle on the best model for the distribution of scholarly research, and it's clear that neither green nor gold open-access is that model... And then, my own personal favourites: JB: Open access advocates think they know better than everyone else and want to impose their policies on others. Thus, the open access movement has the serious side-effect of taking away other's freedom from them. We observe this tendency in institutional mandates. Harnad (2013) goes so far as to propose [an]…Orwellian system of mandates… documented [in a] table of mandate strength, with the most restrictive pegged at level 12, with the designation immediate deposit + performance evaluation (no waiver option). This Orwellian system of mandates is documented in Table 1... JB: A social movement that needs mandates to work is doomed to fail. A social movement that
[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.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 - a product of the open-access movement - has poisoned scholarly communication, fostering research misconduct and the publishing of pseudo-science, but OA advocates refuse to recognize the growing problem. By instituting a policy of exchanging funds between researchers and publishers, the movement has fostered corruption on a grand scale. Instead of arguing for openaccess, we must determine and settle on the best model for the distribution of scholarly research, and it's clear that neither green nor gold open-access is that model... And then, my own personal favourites: JB: Open access advocates think they know better than everyone else and want to impose their policies on others. Thus, the open access movement has the serious side-effect of taking away other's freedom from them. We observe
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
Interesting twist on a plot good enough to draw the attention of a revived Monty Python... Will the real Jeffrey Beall stand up? And, as a question to the whole community, if you had written such a paper, would you claim it? :-) Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 09 décembre 2013 à 21:14 +, Gerritsma, Wouter a écrit : 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 bloghttp://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.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 Access. 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
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
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: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
Keep on guys! it's far better than any television series ever put on the air (although quite cryptic for anyone appart the happy few) De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Beall, Jeffrey Envoyé : lundi 9 décembre 2013 22:46 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List 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.orgmailto: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
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody. David On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey wrote: 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.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 Access. 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
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
Indeed, Jeffrey is not calling OA an anti-capitlist plot [sic] — not even an anti-capitalist one. But he does use the term anti-corporatist movement. What surprises me is that he nevertheless chose to publish his article in an open access journal, albeit under a CC-BY-NC-ND licence. (That is not made clear in the article itself, where it only mentions CC: Creative Commons License 2013, but on the journal's web site it mentions the most restrictive CC licence, CC-BY-NC-ND: http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514). I have to admit, I only skim-read the article, so perhaps he explained his choice and have I missed that passage. On the other hand, perhaps he chose open access in order to reach the widest possible audience. Just like open access advocates would. It may be his first (subconscious?) step on the path to join the 'movement'. Jan Velterop On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu wrote: 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.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 Access. TripleC Communication, Capitalism Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597http://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
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Beall, Jeffrey jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.eduwrote: 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. No, you wrote the following (and more), for which that was a mercifully short synopsis (in scare quotes): *The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with….* Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts. [!] *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orggoal-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 Access http://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 – a product of the open-access movement – has poisoned scholarly communication, fostering research misconduct and the publishing of pseudo-science, but OA advocates refuse to recognize the growing problem. By instituting a policy of exchanging funds between researchers and publishers, the movement has fostered corruption on a grand scale.
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
One should never underestimate Jeffrey Beall's sense of humour... :-) And we all admire his capacity for predictions and categorizations. This said, I would love to hear about those who did the peer review for Beall's article. Are there any? If not, perhaps the journal Triple-C could qualify to enter a certain Jeffrey Beall's list, even though this decision might give rise to a conflict of disinterest... Of course, my earlier suggestion to fork Beall's list and place it in responsible hands (such as DOAJ supported by a consortium of libraries) would allow moving past the conflict of disinterest. If Woody Allen ever should come across this (admittedly picayune) discussion, it could lead to some really funny moments in a good movie. Oh, Jeffrey Beall, what would we do without you? How dull the world! Does it take a mile-high city to create this kind of thinking? Oxygen, anyone? Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 09 décembre 2013 à 14:45 -0700, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit : 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.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 Access. TripleC Communication, Capitalism Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597 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
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
There is another puzzling element in all of this: Triple C, when you look at it until around 2012 (I have not done a thorough verification), through individual articles, refers to Cognition, Communication, Cooperation. Yet, these articles appear through a new template that reads: Communication, Capitalism, Critique. One further twist in the plot: did Beall highjack a journal in Austria, on the model of what he suspected in the case of a Swiss journal a while back (October 29th is the date of Beall's question). In the latter case, i even tried to help him a little, but he never responded to my mail, if only to thank me. So we might have a highjacked journal with Beall inserting a spoofed piece to make OA advocates react. A new Sokal affair, in short, or a new sting inspired by the recent Science caper... So, if this theory is true, what does it prove? Nothing more than it should have been published on April 1st, as was my initial reaction. And, as I said, we should never underestimate Jeffrey Beall's sense of humour... Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 09 décembre 2013 à 14:45 -0700, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit : 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.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 Access. 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
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
Dear Jeffrey, Thanks for clarifying this one. I am certainly not a lackey of Harnad. I am under the impression that the whole epistle is a rather large rant, I really wonder who has done the peer review of this work. But ironically you prove your point by getting this published in an OA journal. Is this publisher perhaps on your list? Wouter Wouter Gerritsma Team leader research support Information Specialist - Bibliometrician Wageningen UR Library PO box 9100 6700 HA Wageningen The Netherlands ++31 3174 83052 wouter.gerrit...@wur.nlmailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl%0d wageningenur.nl/libraryhttp://wageningenur.nl/library @wowterhttp://twitter.com/Wowter/ wowter.nethttp://wowter.net/ #AWCP http://tinyurl.com/mk65m36 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Beall, Jeffrey Sent: maandag 9 december 2013 22:46 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List 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.orgmailto: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
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
I'll let more notorious OA advocates (named or unnamed in the article) point out the many flaws and weaknesses in Beall's article (if they think it's worth the effort). What strikes me though is that it looks much more like an opinion piece than a scholarly paper; the distinction is important, as the appropriate reaction is quite different in the two cases. But I'd like to point out one specific statement : OA advocates [...] ignor[e] the value additions provided by professional publishers . This is quite strange, because almost all OA advocates value, and want to maintain at least one of these additions, the most important in my opinion: peer reviewing. Maybe the OA advocates I know are not those whom Beall refers to, but the article doesn't allow us to tell, except for a few, notably Harnad, curiously one of the most vocal defenders of peer-reviewing in the OA movement. There is also much irony in this statement, considering the fact that Beall published his article in an OA journal that doesn't seem to add much value: no formatting, no copy editing (we ask authors to use our Layout template and take full responsibility for their own proofreading http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/about/editorialPolicies). As to the peer-reviewing of Triple-C, if I were to follow Beall, I would probably conclude that it constitutes evidence that even non-predatory OA journals (Triple-C charges no author fees) are doing a bad job at it. But I won't. Marc Couture ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
