From: Michael Magoulias <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:57:28 +0000

We're getting somewhere now. Beall's real failings were that he did
not allow his project to be co-opted by the so-called Open Access
movement via collaboration with the DOAJ, and that he failed to heed
the injunctions of Jean-Claude Guedon.  It's hard to see either one of
these as either legitimate or damaging complaints.

Why should he have collaborated with DOAJ? It's a community-curated
list that declares its bias by stating that it will not "discuss
individual publishers or applications with members of the public
unless we believe that, by doing so, we will be making a positive
contribution to the open access community."  So much for transparency
and freedom from bias.  If it is perfectly reasonable for an OA
advocacy group and a platform company to maintain their own lists, why
can't an individual scholar?

If one compares the stated principles of Beall's List, one finds much
more expansive and rigorous criteria than anything in the DOAJ.  Would
that the majority of non-standard journals were even half as
forthcoming about their editorial policies.  For those who are
curious, the relevant link is here.
http://beallslist.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/9/5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf

Not only is Beall clear and thorough in explaining his criteria, but
he is admirably undogmatic in his approach. The website's homepage
begins with: "This is a list of questionable, scholarly open-access
publishers.  We recommend that scholars read the available reviews,
assessments and descriptions provided here, and then decide for
themselves whether they want to submit articles, serve as editors or
on editorial boards.  In a few cases, non-open access publishers whose
practices match those of predatory publishers have been added to the
list as well."

All reference works are of necessity a reflection of the time when
they were first created or subsequently updated.  Beall takes account
of this by recognizing "that journal publishers and journals change in
their business and editorial practices over time.  This list is kept
up-to-date to the best extent possible but may not reflect sudden,
unreported, or unknown enhancements."  This statement therefore opens
up the possibility that an additional salutary effect of the list was
to stimulate more professional practices among publishers and journal
that unintentionally found themselves in unsavory company.  A journal
that really was "bona fide" might have improved its operations to the
point where it remedied the defects that got it originally placed on
the list.

With all this care taken to explain the nature of the list, it is
understandable, but far from convincing, that an advocate of
non-standard journal publishing should want to discredit Beall's
activities.  The fact that the universally accepted badness of the
practices of predatory publishes are typically, but not always, found
in titles claiming the OA designation is obviously a source of
embarrassment and concern to that community.

What is unacceptable is to seek to attempt to undermine the validity
of the list through the use of unsupported assertion, personal attack,
slipshod arguments, innuendo, and lack of evidence.  One might also
add nonsensical metaphor.  Many have found a watery grave, but I'm not
aware of any cases of death by muddied waters.

It is equally unacceptable to seek to silence, or rejoice in the
silencing of, a voice with which one disagrees.  Unfortunately, there
is a tendency, shown frequently on this listserv, for those who are
formally part of the scholarly community to argue in favor of
non-traditional journal publishing in a manner that subverts academic
norms and values and that also undermines the principles of academic
freedom.  The 1940 statement of those principles by the American
Association of University Professors declares that "teachers are
entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the
results."  (One might also argue that the mandate of RCUK to have the
research that they have funded published only in journals that are
compliant with their own OA policies circumscribes academic freedom in
this regard.)

The really interesting question that has not been appropriately
pursued is what exactly were the circumstances that led to Beall's
list being discontinued?  In many places and in many different
contexts academic freedom is under threat, so it is naturally a source
of speculation that something along those lines happened in this case.
The Inside Higher Ed article in January referenced "threats and
politics" as the reasons, and Beall's institution was quick to state
that it did not impose the decision upon him, but these statements
only make the need for a clear answer all the more pressing.

Michael Magoulias
Director, Journals
University of Chicago Press

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:34:18 -0400

Beall's list could have done so much good work if he had accepted
collaborating with other, complementary, organizations, such as DOAJ.
I suggested this to him, once, but in vain. he did not even respond or
explain why he would not do such a thing.

It must never be forgotten that Beall's list never clearly
distinguished between bad publications and open access publications,
particularly if the latter did not originate with a well known,
preferably Western-based, publisher. Hindawi temporarily fell victim
to this kind of behaviour. So did the Scielo platform, once described
as publishing "favelas" by Beall. By muddying th waters as much as he
did, Beall did at least as much harm as he did good.

Jean-Claude Guidon


Le jeudi 08 juin 2017 à 20:09 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
From: Byron Russell <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:17:53 +0000

I quite agree. It was too easy (or lazy?) to see the list as being the
go-to place for information about predatory publishers, several of
whom – bona fide academic publishers – are hosted by Ingenta Connect,
which gave rise to some concern as to what exactly the compiler’s
parameters were. Like the DOAJ, we prefer to carry our own vetting
procedures when approached by new publishers seeking our hosting
services.

Byron

Byron Russell
Head of Ingenta Connect
Ingenta

Tel. +44 (0)1865 397881
Mob. +44 (0)7900 494258


From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 07:20:05 +0000

Indeed.  And the lives and livelihoods of some of people who worked
for the publishers that were arbitrarily targeted by the list were
affected. There is no excuse for harassment,  but there must be an
acknowledgement that Beall’s whims had negative consequences,
consequences that we magnified by the importance we collectively gave
to the list .

David