From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:38:52 -0400

I really don't think this is true, David.  I think Beall is doing a
good job for OA by making distinctions between different services.
Whatever Beall may think of OA overall, his work serves to strengthen
it.

Joe Esposito


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:10 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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