From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:02:46 +0400

Hi All

Sandy says:
> Beall's complaint is not that predatory publishers are profiting but
that they are extracting money from the system of scholarly
communication while providing no significant service in return.

And until he can provide proper and verifiable proof of this, then his
complaint has no value at all.

Regards

Ken

Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman


On 3 June 2013 03:19, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 22:27:45 -0500
>
> Of course, the world is not quite so simple and clear-cut as Ken makes
> it out to be. E.g., there are some journals where the peer review is
> done by the publisher's staff, who are themselves experts in the field
> with Ph.D.s. And when we get to talking about OA monograph publishing,
> then all peer review (except that done by the editors of special book
> series) is done by the publishing staff in conjunction with the
> external reviewers whom they engage. And that kind of peer review is
> compensated, not done for free.
>
> Beall's complaint is not that predatory publishers are profiting but
> that they are extracting money from the system of scholarly
> communication while providing no significant service in return. At
> least "greedy" commercial publishers are providing real services that
> have value!
>
> Sandy