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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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.
__
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
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
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
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
--
*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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 +,
, 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
(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
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
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
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
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
: 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
(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
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,
33 matches
Mail list logo
