From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:22:49 -0400

Jeffrey Beall's article in Biochemia Medica is indeed well worth
reading, both for positive and negative reasons.

To start with, publishing this article in an open-access journal that
does not require article processing charges (APC) is exemplary. This
is the pure form of Gold publishing, unlike APC-based publishing. The
possibility of offering pure Gold publishing in this particular case
rests on the simple fact that the Croatian Society of Medical
Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine supports its journal financially,
and it receives grants from the Ministry of Science and Education of
the Republic of Croatia.

The most important concern expressed by Jeffrey Beall in this article
is indeed the issue of the quality of science that Jim O'Donnell has
underscored in his reaction. Beall makes the correct argument that the
the use of APCs places a journal in a delicate situation because any
financial pressure on this journal will lead to the temptation of
lowering the rejection rate of submissions to increase revenues. This
does not lead outright to a conflict of interest, but the possibility
is certainly open. It also opens the door to predatory journals, a
point that I have made myself on a number of occasions most recently
in my piece commemorating the 15th anniversary of the Budapest Open
Access Initiative, "Open Access: Toward the Internet of the Mind"
(http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/open-access-toward-the-internet-of-the-mind
).

Seen in this perspective, the rise of predatory journals is indeed
preoccupying: rejection rates vary continuously from 0 to high
percentages. At what rejection level is knowledge considered to be
valid, albeit of mediocre quality? Presently, the scientific archive
is comprised of articles that lie uneasily at the limits of validity.
As Beall points out, this creates a clear and important demarcation
dilemma which should not be neglected by anyone, particularly by
defenders of open access. We are now saddled with pseudo- and
border-line science with incalculable consequences for the future of
knowledge. A great clean-up effort is in order and libraries could
certainly network and organize to help in this task. Despite what
Beall states in his section on white and black lists, the best way for
libraries to participate in a great cleanup job of the scientific
record would be to assist DOAJ in establishing a worldwide white list
of open access journals and in maintaining it.

Librarians have another problem to confront: is it really their role
to support the APC-based form of open access? My answer is that it is
not. Simply by paying APCs, libraries intrinsically support a business
model which, among other disadvantages, opens the possibility of
counterfeit journals to multiply. If libraries withdrew APC-subsidies,
they would also have more resources to craft open access in better
ways, including the support of pure, APC-free, Gold publishing,
presumably in conjunction with university presses.

Beall is entirely correct in  stigmatizing the way academic
achievements are evaluated and measured. However, he should also
consider how strongly impact factors are defended by publishers.
Meanwhile, researchers should be examine the fallacies of the IF.

On the negative side, the latest piece by Jeffrey Beall contains a
number of errors and weird forms of judgements that simply weaken his
case.

1. The reasons outlined by Beall to explain the dramatic rise in
subscription prices of serials are incomplete at best. The currency
explanation is simply inaccurate, as a quick look at
<http://www.macrotrends.net/2549/pound-dollar-exchange-rate-historical-chart>
will show. Meanwhile, the costs of journals kept going steadily up and
up, and at a pace that easily exceeded the combined effects of
inflation and of the expanded publishing needs of research communities
all over the world after WWII. For other explanations, I have touched
on this subject back in 2001 in
<http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/in-oldenburgs-long-shadow.pdf>,
an essay I wrote for ARL. More recently, beside my BOAI piece already
referenced above, the issue is also analyzed in the report "Untangling
Academic Publishing" by Aileen Fyfe & alii, recently launched in the
UK <https://zenodo.org/record/546100#.WUGqex9ElhE>.

2. In quick successsion, I also note the following errors:

a.  DSpace and EPrint, two of the more popular repository software,
are free software. As a result, licensing costs are zero. And how can
repositories be so costly on p. 274 and relatively inexpensive on p.
278?

b. Open access "zealots" would have to be very powerful to impose
mandates on their fellow researchers. In most of the cases I know,
such mandates have been negotiated inch by inch, and through a fully
democratic process;

c. Could we have some documentation on the tens of thousands of
researchers who have allegedly earned Masters and PH.D. degrees thanks
to predatory journals? No need to floor the rhetorical pedal here.

There is finally the issue of Beall's difficulties with the "Open
Access Movement". Clearly, he reacts to this phrase the way a Fox News
anchor might refer to "The Left". In the end, his characterization of
the "Movement" turns out to  be quite funny. It lends an appearance of
cohesion and unified perspective to a dispersed group of people who,
often, do not even know each other personally, and find plenty of
reasons to disagree vigorously with each other. Individuals ready to
accept being broadly categorized in the "Open Access Movement" would
nonetheless be astonished by the image constructed here. But if it is
what it takes to be on the side of those defending higher minimal
wages, then it may be worth bearing with Beall's uncontested talent
for the simplistic.

The paragraph purporting to describe how social movements need an
enemy is worthy of an anthology devoted to pop-sociology. Clearly,
Biochemia Medica is not very good at peer reviewing social science
arguments.

On the other hand, the tactics used by some "publishers" against Beall
are simply unacceptable. Beall's forms of expression may not always
have been entirely appropriate to the academic context, but these
failings do not justify harassing him through the hierarchy of his
university.

In toto, and despite its several flaws, Beall’s paper does foreground
the grave problem of an uncertain demarcation between good knowledge
and the rest. In an age of blatant unreason, this is a very important
question. By showing how the demarcation issue is deeply linked with
the rejection rates of submissions in journals, and how in turn the
rejection rate affects revenue generation in APC-based Gold
publishing, Beall’s paper casts a long shadow over APCs everywhere.



Le mardi 13 juin 2017 à 18:37 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:01:18 -0700

Jeffrey Beall of the University of Denver has published, in a serious
peer-reviewed journal, an article outlining the history of the
'predatory list' and his views on the landscape of journal publishing.

http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2017/2/273?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&iid=c80e62cb81974fa6879b869bb6924837&uid=774480907&nid=244+289476616

This link should work as well:

https://tinyurl.com/ydgy4h39

It is one of five pieces on predatory journals in this special issue
of the journal Biochemia Medica, a distinctive venue.  Here is a link
that should take you to the special issue:

http://www.biochemia-medica.com/node/830

Beall's unorthodoxy is palpable, his arguments vigorous.  His largest
concern is with the damage done to the quality of science by the
profusion of unreliable sources.  He doesn't quite say "fake science!"
but that is the direction in which he points.  Well worth reading.

Jim O'Donnell
ASU