From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:43:28 +0100

Antony and I disagree on this.  I think that by focussing such a
bright light on such a tiny problem (the minute number of papers being
published by publishers on Beall's list) it is beginning to make an
association between 'Open Access' and 'Predatory' in the minds of
those who are paying scant attention.  And it deflects attention from
other 'predatory' behaviour by other publishers.

David



On 25 Jun 2013, at 01:45, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:45:10 +0100

I think there may have been some misunderstandings here. My experience
of interviewing academics over the last two months has been and the
conclusions I draw are:

1.      The activities of the publishers that Beall has listed has
been really and unfairly damaging to Open Access as a whole.
Academics seem to believe that is a systemic fault following from
paying to publish. Note that I do not believe this: I am recording. I
have yet to meet an academic who has complained about recently being
pressed to publish in, referee for or go on the editorial board of a
subscription journal whether new or old. I think DOAJ is correct in
taking note of this. I think Beall is doing a service to Open Access.

2.      Likewise in discussion about peer review quite a number of
academics have described circumstances when they are encouraged and
even (much less common) forced to cite other (supposedly relevant)
articles previously published in a journal they have submitted an
article to. My understanding is that most of these journals are
established subscription based journals though I did not ask this
question directly. I have read through the comment in Nature and the
original statement from ISI and I do not see a definition of
self-citation but my understanding was that this form of gaming
involves citation by an author in a journal of other articles
published in a journal not (as Joe seems to think) citation of one’s
own previous articles. For many years there has been discussion at
least in publishing and academic circles about how far one can go in
encouraging self-citation in this sense (compelling has always been
frowned upon): there is no secret here. It now seems to be generally
felt that editors should be discouraged (prevented?) by publishers
from adopting the practice of offering to the submitting author a list
of articles they might site.

I happen to have different views from Kevin. I do not want to force
authors to have to publish open access through mandates. But this is a
different question.

I have however nothing against nor ever had any objection to the open
access model only doubts about its sustainability in economic terms. I
can give references if anyone was interested.  I am certainly against
the OA model as such being trashed.

Anthony


From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph Esposito
Sent: 24 June 2013 00:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: From Nature: 66 journals banned for boosting impact
factor with self-citations

I would be astonished to discover that self-citation is restricted to
OA publications, so Kevin and I find ourselves in the unfamiliar
situation of agreeing with one another.  But there is a different
question buried here:  is the problem self-citation or the inclusion
of self-citation in measuring impact?  I would think that
self-citation is a natural act, like admiring your own children, but
there is no reason to include these citations in measuring impact.

Joe Esposito