From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 00:32:08 +0000

Agreed.  And it is worth noting that nearly 70% of gold OA journals do
not charge APCs.  So we are talking about a minority of journals
within only one of the OA business models.

Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
Director of Scholarly Communication
Duke University Libraries
P.O. Box 90193
Durham, NC 27708


On May 26, 2013, at 7:22 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:15:27 -0400
>
> Whether or not one agrees with Jeffrey Beall's analysis of "predatory"
> publishers, I hope it is clear that this analysis is not an indictment
> of OA overall but of potentially abusive practices within the OA
> world.  I don't see how Beall makes traditional publishing look any
> better.  What it does do is make the responsible OA publishers seem
> all that more admirable.
>
> Advocates of OA publishing really have no reason to be defensive.  A
> well-managed Gold OA service is a very good thing indeed.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:10 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 20:09:17 -0500
>>
>> The chief difference that seems to escape Kevin's notice is that the
>> barriers to entry for new OA publishers, compared with traditional
>> print publishers, is very low indeed. If there were OA publishers who
>> actually distributed their journals in print form, this difference
>> would disappear, but I don't know of any. Does Kevin? So, yes, there
>> is a good reason that Beall has focused his attention on OA journal
>> publishers.
>>
>> Sure, both print and OA publishers may be found that run shoddy
>> operations and engage in deceptive practices. But when a new OA
>> publisher announces that it is going to publish 200 new journals all
>> of a sudden, which are presumably supported by prestigious scholars
>> whose names appear on their editorial boards (many of whom, it turns
>> out, have never been asked for permission to have their names so
>> used), one has to be suspicious. I did some investigating, on a very
>> small scale, of some of these "new" OA journal enterprises and found
>> many of the same questionable practices as Beall did. But because I am
>> no longer affiliated with an institution that might be prepared to
>> come to my legal defense, I am not about to make this evidence
>> available on any public forum and have legal suits for $1 billion
>> brought against me!
>>
>> Sandy Thatcher