[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises CredibilityofBeall's List
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
On 11 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Sally Morris wrote:
I actually think that J-C's response illustrates very clearly how OA has
been mistaken for a religion, with its very own 'gospel'. This, IMHO, is
part of its problem!
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: 10 December 2013 15:26
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility
ofBeall's List
In response to Sally, I would remind her that re-use was part of the
original BOAI declaration. Scholars and teachers need more than eye-contact
with articles. So, this is not a secondary point.
The immediacy issue concerns deposit; it is simply a pragmatic and obvious
point: capturing an article at time of acceptance is optimal for exposure
and circulation of information. If the publisher does not allow public
exposure and imposes an embargo - thus slowing down the circulation of
knowledge -, the private request button allows for eye contact, at least.
This button solution is not optimal, but it will do on a pragmatic scale so
long as it is needed to circumvent publishers' tactics.
Cost savings are not part of BOAI; it is a request by administrators of
research centres and their libraries. This said, costs of OA publishing
achieved by a platform such as Scielo are way beneath the prices practised
by commercial publishers (including non-profit ones). And it should become
obvious that if you avoid 45% profit rates, you should benefit.
The distinction between nice and nasty publishers is of unknown origin
and I would not subscribe to it. More fundamentally, we should ask and ask
again whether scientific publishing is meant to help scientific research, or
the reverse. Seen from the former perspective, embargoes appear downright
absurd.
As for why OA has not been widely accepted now, the answer is not difficult
to find: researchers are evaluated; the evaluation, strangely enough, rests
on journal reputations rather than on the intrinsic quality of articles.
Researchers simply adapt to this weird competitive environment as best they
can, and do not want to endanger their career prospects in any way. As a
result, what counts for them is not how good their work is, but rather where
they can publish it. Open Access, by stressing a return to intrinsic quality
of work, implicitly challenges the present competition rules. As such, it
appears at best uncertain or even threatening to researchers under career
stress. So long as evaluation rests on journal titles, the essential source
of power within scientific publishing will rest with the major international
publishers. They obviously believe research was invented to serve them!
The interesting point about mega journals, incidentally, is that they are
not really journals, but publishing platforms. Giving an impact factor to
PLoS One is stupid: citation cultures vary from discipline to discipline,
and the mix of disciplines within PLoS One varies with time. Doing a simple
average of the citations of the whole is methodologically faulty: remember
that scientists in biomed disciplines quote about four times as much as
mathematicians. What if, over a certain period of time, the proportion of
mathematical articles triples for whatever reason? The raw impact factor
will go down. Does this mean anything in terms of quality? Of course not!
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le mardi 10 décembre 2013 à 13:36 +, Sally Morris a écrit :
At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me
say that whatever
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises CredibilityofBeall'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
On 11 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Sally Morris wrote:
I actually think that J-C's response illustrates very clearly how OA has
been mistaken for a religion, with its very own 'gospel'. This, IMHO, is
part of its problem!
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: 10 December 2013 15:26
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility
ofBeall's List
In response to Sally, I would remind her that re-use was part of the
original BOAI declaration. Scholars and teachers need more than eye-contact
with articles. So, this is not a secondary point.
The immediacy issue concerns deposit; it is simply a pragmatic and obvious
point: capturing an article at time of acceptance is optimal for exposure
and circulation of information. If the publisher does not allow public
exposure and imposes an embargo - thus slowing down the circulation of
knowledge -, the private request button allows for eye contact, at least.
This button solution is not optimal, but it will do on a pragmatic scale so
long as it is needed to circumvent publishers' tactics.
Cost savings are not part of BOAI; it is a request by administrators of
research centres and their libraries. This said, costs of OA publishing
achieved by a platform such as Scielo are way beneath the prices practised
by commercial publishers (including non-profit ones). And it should become
obvious that if you avoid 45% profit rates, you should benefit.
The distinction between nice and nasty publishers is of unknown origin
and I would not subscribe to it. More fundamentally, we should ask and ask
again whether scientific publishing is meant to help scientific research, or
the reverse. Seen from the former perspective, embargoes appear downright
absurd.
As for why OA has not been widely accepted now, the answer is not difficult
to find: researchers are evaluated; the evaluation, strangely enough, rests
on journal reputations rather than on the intrinsic quality of articles.
Researchers simply adapt to this weird competitive environment as best they
can, and do not want to endanger their career prospects in any way. As a
result, what counts for them is not how good their work is, but rather where
they can publish it. Open Access, by stressing a return to intrinsic quality
of work, implicitly challenges the present competition rules. As such, it
appears at best uncertain or even threatening to researchers under career
stress. So long
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises CredibilityofBeall's List
Thank you, Jan. Very well put.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le jeudi 12 décembre 2013 à 13:44 +, Jan Velterop a écrit :
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
On 11 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Sally Morris wrote:
I actually think that J-C's response illustrates very clearly how
OA has been mistaken for a religion, with its very own 'gospel'.
This, IMHO, is part of its problem!
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: 10 December 2013 15:26
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises
Credibility ofBeall's List
In response to Sally, I would remind her that re-use was part of
the original BOAI declaration. Scholars and teachers need more
than eye-contact with articles. So, this is not a secondary
point.
The immediacy issue concerns deposit; it is simply a pragmatic and
obvious point: capturing an article at time of acceptance is
optimal for exposure and circulation of information. If the
publisher does not allow public exposure and imposes an embargo -
thus slowing down the circulation of knowledge -, the private
request button allows for eye contact, at least. This button
solution is not optimal, but it will do on a pragmatic scale so
long as it is needed to circumvent publishers' tactics.
Cost savings are not part of BOAI; it is a request by
administrators of research centres and their libraries. This said,
costs of OA publishing achieved by a platform such as Scielo are
way beneath the prices practised by commercial publishers
(including non-profit ones). And it should become obvious that if
you avoid 45% profit rates, you should benefit.
The distinction between nice and nasty publishers is of
unknown origin and I would not subscribe to it. More
fundamentally, we should ask and ask again whether scientific
publishing is meant to help scientific research, or the reverse.
Seen from the former perspective, embargoes appear downright
absurd.
As for why OA has not been widely accepted now, the answer is not
difficult to find: researchers are evaluated; the evaluation,
strangely enough, rests on journal reputations rather than on the
intrinsic quality of articles. Researchers simply adapt
