From: Claudia Holland <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:55:04 +0000

Thanks very much for your thoughtful response, Lars. It’s good to know
that all journals in DOAJ must reapply for inclusion.

I appreciate your reminder to refer to the “Principles of Transparency…”
presented by OASPA et al. for assistance to new journal publishers. My
original intention was to encourage participation by others to critique
new publications through civil discourse among a variety of sources, not
just one. As Rick and others have mentioned, Beall provides a service to
many for the heads up about questionable OA publishers; based on his list,
one can either undertake their own critique of that publisher or rely on
Beall’s opinion. Greater involvement in this process could result in fewer
disreputable publishers, I hope.

In my role as a publishing fund manager, I ask an author to share his/her
experience(s) with the peer review process and editor’s handling of their
manuscript when I have concerns about the reputation of an OA journal or
publisher. In this situation, I state my concerns to him/her following the
criteria outlined in our fund guidelines, but the bottom line is, it’s
neither my role nor my purpose to question where or with whom an author is
publishing. Rather, it’s my responsibility to let an author know that
long-term access to their scholarship may be compromised and there has
been online discussion regarding the overall reputation of that journal or
publisher. If the criteria are not met but an author provides a compelling
argument why financial assistance should be awarded, in spite of my
concerns, then that author receives assistance.

Junior faculty who feel strongly about publishing in OA venues can be
particularly vulnerable because they need to get published, they are
bombarded by online solicitations to submit manuscripts, and sometimes
they simply don’t investigate a journal’s reputation as thoroughly as they
should. However, it’s possible a questionable publisher may have the good
fortune of dedicated editors and reviewers involved in building a solid,
if not stellar, journal. From my standpoint, there is a fine line between
inadvertently insulting an author and conveying constructive information
that may positively influence their future (or current) publishing
decisions.

Regards,
Claudia C. Holland



On 8/14/14, 2:08 AM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: "Lars Bjørnshauge" <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:39:11 +0200
>
>Dear Claudia,
>
>thank you for your comments.
>
>A few points:
>
>All journals listed in the have to reapply, rhis process will take
>time. We will soon be ready with a tool that allows multi-journal
>publishers to reapply without having to process the application form
>one by one - look here for more info:
>
>http://doajournals.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/proactive-not-reactive/
>
>The DOAJ Associate Editors, Editors and Managing Editors will actually
>check the information provided by the publishers, all the information
>provided by the publishers will be publicly available, and we hope the
>community will help us monitor if there is a discrepancy as to what
>the publishers state they are doing and what they in fact are doing.
>Feedback from the community can be and is already provided via DOAJ
>Feedback.
>
>Regarding guidance for new journal publishers I would propose the
>Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing,
>developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME:
>
>http://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly
>-publishing/.
>
>For a reveiw of Beall´s criteria and the list take a look at Walt
>Crawfords Cites & Insights, Crawford at Large/Online Edition: Ethics
>and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall, Ethics and Access 2: The
>So-Called Sting and Journals, "Journals" and Wannabes: Investigating
>the List - interesting stuff, that Mr. Beall do not read (quote from
>the Nature piece)!
>
>best
>
>Lars Bjørnshauge
>Managing Director, DOAJ
>
>
>
>2014-08-13 9:33 GMT+02:00 LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> From: Claudia Holland <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:30:51 +0000
>>
>> I am glad to see and appreciate DOAJ tightening its criteria. As one who
>> manages an OA publishing fund and vets author requests for assistance, I
>> groan when I see an individual title listed in DOAJ at the same time the
>> publisher of the journal is included on Beall¹s List. However, I can¹t
>> envision publishers voluntarily reapplying to DOAJ as implied by this
>> sentence in the Nature article "the website is asking all of the
>>journals
>> in its directory to reapply on the basis of stricter criteria." Would it
>> be possible for DOAJ volunteers (I¹m happy to help) to compare the
>> directory with Beall¹s list and send a form letter to overlapping
>> publishers REQUIRING them to reapply?
>>
>> Beall has a valid point about how DOAJ reviewers will determine whether
>>a
>> publisher is lying, but I don¹t agree that DOAJ¹s new criteria is "too
>> little, too late." What I hope to see is more participation by
>>librarians
>> and others in published review of new OA journals, perhaps in a
>> centralized forum like Beall¹s blog. That way, the "blame" is not
>>directed
>> to one individual, and we are more active participants in scrutinizing
>> these journals. Using Beall¹s criteria or a modified version, these
>> reviews may also offer much needed guidance to new journal publishers
>>who
>> are not in it just for the money.
>>
>> Unfortunately, in the eyes of scholars who continue to view all/most OA
>> publications disparagingly, disreputable OA journals undermine the
>> credibility of good OA publishers. The former get more attention than
>> crummy subscription e-journals, it seems.
>>
>> Claudia Holland