From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:01:01 -0700

David,

We know the net result - Jeffrey Beall abruptly interrupted his most
important "life" enterprise.

Clearly, more than simple "harassment" was involved. So "harassment"
is an understatement.

Ari Belenkiy

Vancouver BC
Canada


On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:00 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 01:34:10 +0100
> Subject: Re: Librarian behind list of 'predatory' publishers still faces harassment online
> So we have got to the point where any criticism of Beall's arbitrary list is classed by some as harassment. I'm afraid I find that rather a pity
>
> David
>
>
> On 9 Jun 2017, at 01:07, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Michael Magoulias <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 02:53:33 +0000
>
> Really, the standard of discourse needs to be higher than this. People are turned down for tenure all the time because of poor publication history, and "poor" in this context means any journal that has earned itself a reputation for low quality, regardless of "business model."  Calling a journal "predatory" is simply giving another twist to the knife, but the wound was invariably self-inflicted to begin with.
>
> But of course I'm begging the question here because no evidence has been produced regarding which journals were mislabeled as predatory and which scholars were damaged as a result. I see no reason why this assertion should be taken at face value. It's merely hearsay and gossip at this point. It would be foolish and unethical to claim this as a basis for acknowledging "that Beall's whims had negative consequences." Such a statement constitutes its own form of harassment.
>
> What goes unperceived by Beall's detractors is the positive impact his list had in preventing scholars from getting scammed by the most unscrupulous members of his list. In this sense it provided an important and hygienic function for those trying to navigate an increasingly disordered journal environment.
>
> As someone whose day job is publishing journals, I had numerous occasions to consult Beall's list, and also corresponded with him about its contents. I can't claim to have gone thoroughly through all or even most of its contents, but I never found anything that looked like it didn't belong, nor did any of my communications suggest the slightest degree of whimsy on Beall's part. It was all practical, rigorous editorial judgement.
>
> In hindsight, perhaps he should have issued a trigger warning for the more vulnerable souls and egos.
>
> Michael Magoulias
> Director, Journals
> University of Chicago Press
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 7, 2017, at 7:46 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 07:20:05 +0000
>
> Indeed.  And the lives and livelihoods of some of people who worked for the publishers that were arbitrarily targeted by the list were affected. There is no excuse for harassment,  but there must be an acknowledgement that Beall’s whims had negative consequences, consequences that we magnified by the importance we collectively gave to the list .
>
> David