From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 00:22:25 -0400

Obvious and profound difference between bottom-rung subscription
journals and bottom-rung OA journals: subscription journals have to
convince multiple subscribers that they have a product worth paying
for, sustainably, otherwise no journal; authors risk only their
article, not their money. Publishers risk their investment. Not so
with bottom-rung OA journals, where, with next to no investment,
publisher takes next to no risk, and author, often unknowingly, takes
all the risk.

SH


On 2013-05-22, at 8:34 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:18:12 +0000

It seems obviously true, to me, that all journals, whether OA or
subscription-bassed, should be judged on their merits.  And also that
there are predatory practices amongst some journal publishers of both
types.  My principal objection to Beall's list is that it is critical of
only some of those practices, based on the business model employed.  Why
is to predatory to ask an author to pay a few hundred dollars in
processing charges for open access, but not predatory to increase a small
college's subscription to a single journal 300% overnight (which has
happened several times, in my experience, when small society journals are
bought by large commercial publishers)?  Why is shoddy or non-existent
peer-review predatory at an OA journal, but not when it is discovered in a
"traditional" journal from a commercial publisher (as it sometimes is)?

It is also true, by the way, that bloggers need to be careful about
defamation.  Some of Beall's criticisms of specific publishers are
stronger than I would be comfortable making.  I hope and am prepared to
believe that he has evidence for what he says, since truth is always a
defense against defamation, at least in US courts.  But the post I found
recently about OMICS was pretty vague -- mentioning "evidence" without
specification and quoting a single anonymous scientist.  So I feel
obligated to withhold judgment about the specific accusation, while hoping
that the threat is just a bluff or that Jeffrey can rebuff it. I hope this
mostly because of the chilling effect that such threats can have on the
free exchange of ideas about scholarly publishing, independently of what I
personally think about the value of Beall's own contribution to that
exchange.

Kevin

Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
Director of Copyright and Scholarly Communications
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC 27708
[log in to unmask]