[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
Hi all, I agree - it sounds like there could be a problem with the metadata feed we supply to Rightslink or else how permissions for open access articles display in their systems - we will investigate. With kind wishes, Alicia From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:44 PM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Dear Peter Thanks for your elaborate responses. I have encountered the strange Rightslink messages as well. I think at least Elsevier should reconfigure these. Maybe Alicia can comment on that. Best, Jeroen - Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian GeographyGeoscience Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl telephone: +31.30.2536613 mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht web: Jeroen Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman - From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: zondag 8 december 2013 22:15 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a.w...@elsevier.commailto:a.w...@elsevier.com wrote: Hi Jeroen, These articles can of course be used without any restriction other than the attribution required by the CC-BY license. With kind wishes, Alicia If I visit an Elsevier CC-BY article and ask for permissions - say for translation by myself - I get the message from RightsLink: Pricing for this request requires the approval of an Elsevier Commercial Sales Representative. You will be notified of the price before order confirmation. The processing period may take up to three business days. To enable Elsevier to contact you and price the request, please create a Rightslink account, or log in if you haven't already, and confirm the order details. This is seems in direct contravention of the CC-BY licence which would enable anyone to translate an article without permission. I would actually expect Elsevier to charge me for the rights if I continued with this process and I am not prepared to take the risk. I have encountered many examples of Elsevier CC-BY articles behind Paywalls and with restrictions on re-use. It is unacceptable to require the re-user to be brave enough to assert that the CC-BY article overrides the additional and incompatible restrictions and prices from Elsevier. I would ask Elsevier to adopt a similar policy to Publishers such as BMC and PLoS and simply state, under Permissions, that the paper is available under the CC-BY licence and any legitimate re-use may be made. Dr Alicia Wise Director of Access and Policy Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826tel:%2B44%20%280%29%207823%20536%20826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.commailto:a.w...@elsevier.com Twitter: @wisealic From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:56 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Heather, That would be new for me. Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not in the fine print here:http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy/user-licenses Jeroen Bosman Op 7 dec. 2013 om 22:58 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca het volgende geschreven: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. This is one of the reasons I am participating in the Elsevier boycott and encourage all scholars to join me (google The Cost of Knowledge). My two bits, Heather Morrison On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Peter, This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a good exception allowing archiving of the publishers' version after an embargo period.. Elsevier has always been issuing takedown notices, but not at this
[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. 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 uses mandates is abusive and tantamount to academic slavery. Researchers need more freedom in their decisions not less. How can we expect and demand academic freedom from our
[GOAL] Re: I would like to receive some training about open access to become an expert and help the scholars in Turkey
Dear Mr. Barbaros, You could have a look at the now terminated MedOANet project http://www.medoanet.eu/ with an important involvement from Turkey. I am sure that beyond the global network, from there you can liaise in Turkish with very competent people. All the best Serge Bauin Sorbonne Paris Cité and CNRS http://www.sorbonne-paris-cite.fr/index.php/en/about-us http://www.cnrs.fr/dist/ (in French) -Message d'origine- De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Barbaros Akkurt Envoyé : samedi 7 décembre 2013 14:16 À : goal@eprints.org Objet : [GOAL] I would like to receive some training about open access to become an expert and help the scholars in Turkey Respected members, I have a PhD degree in chemistry and also working in the central library of Istanbul Technical University, and it is my ambition to work on open access for the good of my scholars in the university. Is there any training courses for me to become highly knowledgeable about the open access movement and become an expert in the subject? I am looking forward to talking about any details. Kind regards, Mr. Barbaros Akkurt, PhD Istanbul Technical University Istanbul, Turkey ___ 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
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: [sparc-oaforum] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
Thanks for alerting us to this article, Stevan. Wacky indeed! Some preliminary observations: Commercial scholarly publishing is arguably not a free market; it is a monopoly. The industry has, for example, been the subject of investigation by the UK Office of Fair Trading. The current tenure system forces scholars to publish in high-impact journals, regardless of the cost to the university system. This is a cost to scholars too, as paying high prices for journal subscriptions means less money for universities to use for other purposes - such as hiring junior scholars. If there is a managerial mandate impacting scholars with respect to scholarly publishing that interferes with academic freedom, this is it. Scholars who would prefer to publish in OA journals cannot make the choice because of the tenure process. One remedy for this particularly relevant for university administrators and senior scholars is the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment: http://www.ascb.org/dora/ The open access movement is global in nature and includes people involved in about ten thousand journals and over two thousand repositories. What is common to all open access advocates is a commitment to open access to scholarly publication. Beyond that we have as diverse a set of perspectives as any other group; some of us are relatively left-wing, others relatively right-wing. My own perspective is that there is a place for the corporate sector, however the primary purpose of scholarly publishing is to advance scholarship and the public interest. Profits to publishers are a socially useful side-benefit to the system, unless the push for profits becomes a priority over the needs of scholarship, which I argue is currently the case. It may be worth noting that the two largest and arguably most successful OA publishers to date (BioMedCentral and Hindawi) are professional commercial publishers, and PLoS, while not-for-profit, is also a professional publishing operation. Like Harnad, I am concerned that Beall's wild assertions in this article will obscure some of his observations which have some validity. I do not condone predatory practices by any publisher, and I support providing good advice to scholars about where to publish. However, good options for publishing - sometimes the best option - increasingly includes many high quality open access journals. Reference U.K. Office of Fair Trading. (2002). The market for scientific, medical and technical journals No. OFT 396 U.K. Office of Fair Trade. Retrieved September 13, 2011 from http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/publications/reports/media/ best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa 613-562-5800 ext. 7634 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca On 2013-12-09, at 10:04 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: 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
[GOAL] Re: Scientometric aspects of government OA mandates
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:19 PM, David Wojick dwoj...@craigellachie.uswrote: The Scholarly Kitchen has an interesting article on how to define federal funding under the emerging US OA mandate. See http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/09/what-does-federally-funded-actually-mean/ The scientometric issue is how valid the impact analysis of government agencies can be when government funding is poorly defined, such that research with very little actual government funding is included? Conversely, what role might the scientometric community play in resolving this issue? I have raised this issue in the Kitchen article comments, if anyone wants to join the discussion. Let me see if I get this: Because it is not clear what proportion of the research that a funded researcher publishes can be directly attributed to any particular funding source, it would be better if funders did not mandate that it must be made Open Access (for scientometric reasons!)? I don't think so. In any case, don’t worry: Whatever is not covered by federal funder mandates will be covered by institutional mandates like Harvard’s, MIT’s etc. All refereed research output, both funded and unfunded, in all fields, is the obvious, natural target for OA. No problem for researchers to figure that out: they won’t have to think twice. And publishers — for all their moaning and groaning, and dire warnings of doom and gloom — will, of course, figure out a way to adapt. All the FUD they keep trying to raise at each juncture is so unmistakably just smoke and delay tactics: futile efforts to stave off the obvious, optimal and inevitable outcome for research, researchers, the vast RD industry, and the tax-paying public in the online era: 100% Open Access to all peer-reviewed research immediately upon acceptance for publication. But why is a policy consultant for OSTI raising this scientometric smokescreen which sounds, for all the world, as if it were coming from a lobbyist for the publishing industry? *Stevan Harnad* ___ 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 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 to
[GOAL] OA journal publishing by APC: dominated by the commercial sector
In his recent article in Triple C, Jeffrey Beall claims among other things that the OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement (from http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514). In response, César Villamizar and I pulled some data from an open access article processing charge research-in-progress which illustrates that the portion of open access journal publishing that uses article processing charges (the segment that Beall focuses on in his work on predatory publishers) is heavily dominated by the commercial sector. All of the 14 largest publishers listed in DOAJ that have article processing charges (by number of journals published) are commercial in nature, to the best of my knowledge (if any are not-for-profit, correction would be appreciated). These 14 account for about half of the APC-charging journals listed in DOAJ. The full percentage of APC charging journals has not been calculated, however it would be more than 50% as there are many small publishers using this business approach that are also commercial in nature. Conclusion: Beall's characterization of this sector as anti-corporatist is not logical. To avoid confusion, please note: - The majority of journals listed in DOAJ - about two-thirds - do not charge article processing fees. - Open access publishing is just one of the two major approaches to open access, along with open access archiving. Details can be found on The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Eonomics: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/12/open-access-publishing-by-apc-dominated.html Beall's leap to this conclusion is most unfortunate as like many OA advocates I genuinely appreciate Beall's work on the quality of open access publishing and while I have many issues with this article, there are also points on which I would like to agree. best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa 613-562-5800 ext. 7634 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ___ 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
'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 to
[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: OA journal publishing by APC: dominated by the commercial sector
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: All of the 14 largest publishers listed in DOAJ that have article processing charges (by number of journals published) are commercial in nature, to the best of my knowledge (if any are not-for-profit, correction would be appreciated). PLOS is a non-profit organization that supports itself largely through its publishing activities. from www.plos.org It is important to realize that commercial and for-profit are not synonymous. PLoS is a commercial non-profit organization. Commercial is a wide concept but it is generally agreed that this includes any form of transaction of value, including teaching (students pay fees to be taught). -- 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
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
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On 9 December 2013 00:20, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.cawrote: Alicia, According to your statement below, with CC-BY the only restriction placed by Elsevier is for attribution. However, the Elsevier open access license policy clearly states that Elsevier demands an exclusive license to publish with open access works (including CC-BY). Can you explain this discrepancy? I don't believe this is a discrepancy. What it is saying that the definitive record is published by Elsevier, and the author provides an exclusive licence in order to do so. Re-publishing, or re-distributing via any other venue constitutes a derivative work, which is permissible and does not conflict with the exclusive licence (which is only on the definitive record, not the derivative) - providing the proper attribution is in place. Without the exclusive licence to the definitive record, then as the author retains copyright, then in theory the author could authorize publishing of a version of the definitive record without attribution to the Elsevier version. It's a question of preserving the version of record. The difference between the author providing a licence to Elsevier to distribute an article under CC-BY, and the author providing a CC-BY licence to Elsevier. Comment: Based on this wording it is clear that Elsevier is requiring an exclusive publishing license. This is not compatible with your explanation below that nothing is required beyond attribution as required by the CC-BY license. It is consistent - the article can be re-published elsewhere, providing it is accordance with the CC-BY licence, including attribution to the definitive record as published by Elsevier. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Beall on the open access movement: 3 reasonable points in a sea of nonsense
After thoroughly reading Beall's paper I can find three reasonable points raised. - Speculation on the effect of the price mechanism introduced between author and publisher through Gold OA journals with APC's. This is something that deserves close attention. It should be interesting to discuss the SCOAP model (http://scoap3.org/) in this regard. - The supposed absence of the a community function in broad OA megajournals. Is that true? Is it to be regretted? Are there alternative communities that function separate from the journal proper? - The supposed lack of warnings issued by OA advocates against predatory journals. I at least partly second Beall here. I myself was taken by surprise by the amazing speed with which these bogus journals came to rise. And DOAJ waited far too long with more stringent criteria. All three issues merit further discussion but alas in Beall's paper these points are drowning in a sea of unproductive nonsense. BTW many researchers in my university effectively have a mandate: to publish in first quartile impact factor JCR journals . Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Beall on the open access movement: 3 reasonable points in a sea of nonsense
I don't remember anybody noting here that it actually appears in a special Open Access section of the issue along with nine other contributions. Debating Open Access (Comments, Non Peer-Reviewed) http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/issue/view/27 Lorcan Dempsey http://www.oclc.org/research http://orweblog.oclc.org http://www.twitter.com/LorcanD From: goal-boun...@eprints.org goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nl Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 6:01 PM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Beall on the open access movement: 3 reasonable points in a sea of nonsense After thoroughly reading Beall's paper I can find three reasonable points raised. - Speculation on the effect of the price mechanism introduced between author and publisher through Gold OA journals with APC's. This is something that deserves close attention. It should be interesting to discuss the SCOAP model (http://scoap3.org/) in this regard. - The supposed absence of the a community function in broad OA megajournals. Is that true? Is it to be regretted? Are there alternative communities that function separate from the journal proper? - The supposed lack of warnings issued by OA advocates against predatory journals. I at least partly second Beall here. I myself was taken by surprise by the amazing speed with which these bogus journals came to rise. And DOAJ waited far too long with more stringent criteria. All three issues merit further discussion but alas in Beall's paper these points are drowning in a sea of unproductive nonsense. BTW many researchers in my university effectively have a mandate: to publish in first quartile impact factor JCR journals . Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
