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
>
>
> On 8/10/14, 1:25 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> >Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 08:41:59 -0400
> >
> >See the following article regarding a re-vamp of the DOAJ.  Kudos to
> >the DOAJ for taking on this overhaul.
> >
> >"Now, following criticism of its quality-control checks, the website
> >is asking all of the journals in its directory to reapply on the basis
> >of stricter criteria. It hopes the move will weed out Œpredatory
> >journals¹: those that profess to publish research openly, often
> >charging fees, but that are either outright scams or do not provide
> >the services a scientist would expect, such as a minimal standard of
> >peer review or permanent archiving."
> >
> >http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-website-gets-tough-1.15674?utm_sour
> >ce=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Copyright%20%26%20A2K%20Issues
> >%20-%208%20August%202014
> >
> >[Also see the 5 August liblicense-l posting (reproduced below) linking
> >to West/Bergstrom's article about economic considerations in
> >submitting to OA journals.  The work considers the relationship
> >between APCs and journal prestige.]
> >
> >Jevin West, Ted Bergstrom, Carl Bergstrom.  Cost Effectiveness of Open
> >Access Publications.
> >
> >http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=ted_berg
> >strom
> >
> >To be published in Fall 2014:  Economic Inquiry 52.4 (2014)
> >
> >[A journal from Western Economic Association & Wiley]
> >
> >Abstract
> >
> >Open access publishing has been proposed as one possible solution to
> >the serials crisis‹the rapidly growing subscription prices in
> >scholarly journal publishing. However, open access publishing can
> >present economic pitfalls as well, such as excessive article
> >processing charges. We discuss the decision that an author faces when
> >choosing to submit to an open access journal. We develop an
> >interactive tool to help authors compare among alternative open access
> >venues and thereby get the most for their article processing charges.