From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:08:19 -0400

I apologize to Ken Masters. I mistakenly took his questions to be
directed to Jeffrey Beall rather than to the person who wrote the
letter to him. -- Stevan Harnad

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:25 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:16:07 +0400
>
> Hi All
>
> Stevan Harnad wrote:  "Since neither Jan Velterop nor Ken Masters seem
> to have looked at Jeffrey Beall's published criteria, I append them
> below:"
>
> I'd really like to know how he arrived at that conclusion about me.
> My questions were clearly suggested as questions to be directed
> towards the person identified as sending the letter concerning Jeffrey
> Beall.  These are, however, fairly standard questions, and if anyone
> wishes to ask them of anyone else (or if Jeffrey Beall wishes to
> address those), that's fine by me - there is no copyright on them.
>
> Perhaps a re-reading of my mail would be appropriate.
>
> Regards
>
> Ken
>
> Dr. Ken Masters
> Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
> Medical Education Unit
> College of Medicine & Health Sciences
> Sultan Qaboos University
> Sultanate of Oman
> E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education
>
>
> On 24 March 2013 20:23, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 01:06:13 -0400
> >
> > >From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
> > >Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:07:58 +0100
> >
> > >The questions Ken Masters suggests are very sensible. Wouldn't it be
> > >fair if they were also be asked of Jeffrey Beall when he puts a
> > >publisher on his list, effectively alleging that those publishers are
> > >'predatory'? Are they? Are they being satisfactorily answered?
> >
> > >From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
> > >Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:09:12 +0400
> > >
> > >Serious allegations indeed.  Perhaps some questions to put to him are:
> > >
> > >- Do you have actual evidence beyond your own opinions?  (Not that
> > >one's own opinions are necessarily invalid; it's just good to know
> > >their basis, beyond speculation).
> > >
> > >- Has this evidence (and your conclusions) been verified by other
> > >independent professionals?
> > >
> > >- Is the process by which you have arrived at your conclusions based
> > >on established and professionally-recognised procedures, or have you
> > >determined these yourself?
> > >
> > >- As the allegations carry possible implications of criminality, has
> > >any of this evidence been shown to law-enforcement officials?  If so,
> > >what was their reaction; if not, why not?
> > >
> > >- Do you have any conflict of interest in the matter (Not necessarily
> > >financial - conflict of interest can come in many forms, including
> > >status and recognition by the various parties involved, and by the
> > >broader professional community).
> >
> > Since neither Jan Velterop nor Ken Masters seem to have looked
> > at Jeffrey Beall's published criteria, I append them below:
> >
> > http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
>
> [snip]