From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:15:02 -0400

Thank you for this comment, Jan. I was beginning to wonder why the
term "predatory" was assigned to OA ventures only. What is really
needed is a watch-list for all predatory publishers, non-OA as well as
OA. Limiting oneself to OA publishers suspiciously looks like an
attempt (yet another one) to discredit OA publications in general.

Jean-Claude Guédon

-- 
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le mercredi 14 mars 2012 à 19:20 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :

From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:34:53 +0000

Though the nice thing about OA articles is that they can reside in
many places at once, and so the chances of those articles getting lost
are much lower than if and when a traditional journal or publisher
disappears. Some traditional publishers have made 'living wills', but
not all. And if they haven't, there may be a ©-orphan problem when
they go under. No such problem with OA articles.

The fear of 'predatory' OA journals is a bit of a red herring. There
are also 'predatory' traditional journals. The difference is the prey.
For author-side paid OA journals it's the author; for subscription
journals it's the library AND the author (who may find that his/her
paper has a circulation of only a few hundred, or even less).

So for authors it always is 'caveat emptor', whether publishing in an
OA journal or a subscription journal.

Jan Velterop

**************************************
Drs Johannes (Jan) Velterop, CEO
Academic Concept Knowledge Ltd. (AQnowledge)
Skype: Villavelius
Email: [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
aqnowledge.co