From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:34:25 +0100

David

What we say on this list has no bearing on what academics think. I am
reporting what influences them. You could argue (as some funders do) that
what academics think and wish is of no importance in the bigger scheme of
things but I do not think you are suggesting that. I actually agree that
predatory open access journals are not really very important but there are
rather a lot of them and their visibility to academics is considerable.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----

From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:43:28 +0100

Antony and I disagree on this.  I think that by focussing such a bright
light on such a tiny problem (the minute number of papers being published by
publishers on Beall's list) it is beginning to make an association between
'Open Access' and 'Predatory' in the minds of those who are paying scant
attention.  And it deflects attention from other 'predatory' behaviour by
other publishers.

David



On 25 Jun 2013, at 01:45, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:45:10 +0100

I think there may have been some misunderstandings here. My experience of
interviewing academics over the last two months has been and the conclusions
I draw are:

1.      The activities of the publishers that Beall has listed has
been really and unfairly damaging to Open Access as a whole.
Academics seem to believe that is a systemic fault following from paying to
publish. Note that I do not believe this: I am recording. I have yet to meet
an academic who has complained about recently being pressed to publish in,
referee for or go on the editorial board of a subscription journal whether
new or old. I think DOAJ is correct in taking note of this. I think Beall is
doing a service to Open Access.

2.      Likewise in discussion about peer review quite a number of
academics have described circumstances when they are encouraged and even
(much less common) forced to cite other (supposedly relevant) articles
previously published in a journal they have submitted an article to. My
understanding is that most of these journals are established subscription
based journals though I did not ask this question directly. I have read
through the comment in Nature and the original statement from ISI and I do
not see a definition of self-citation but my understanding was that this
form of gaming involves citation by an author in a journal of other articles
published in a journal not (as Joe seems to think) citation of one's own
previous articles. For many years there has been discussion at least in
publishing and academic circles about how far one can go in encouraging
self-citation in this sense (compelling has always been frowned upon): there
is no secret here. It now seems to be generally felt that editors should be
discouraged (prevented?) by publishers from adopting the practice of
offering to the submitting author a list of articles they might site.

I happen to have different views from Kevin. I do not want to force authors
to have to publish open access through mandates. But this is a different
question.

I have however nothing against nor ever had any objection to the open access
model only doubts about its sustainability in economic terms. I can give
references if anyone was interested.  I am certainly against the OA model as
such being trashed.

Anthony