From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:31:21 -0700
Well, I didn't expect my straightforward analogy with "race" would cause
such an ire. But let me tackle it seriously.
> As for race, it simply does not exist (except, perhaps, in the USA, among
a number of other delusions that seem presently to thrive in that country).
The races existed for centuries and suddenly disappeared? Like in a fairy
tale?
> When I encounter a race question in a US form, I generally answer:
"unknown" or "incomprehensible question".
Usually, this question is directly related to the different promotions or
bonuses to the "disadvantages". So responding ambiguously, you pretend to
be qualified for them.
> If you pay attention to skin colour, where do you draw the line?
The CULTURE. Just look at the African and European states and compare.
> If we want to do precise classifications, albeit in an equally absurd
manner, let us use blood types, for example.
Yes, you are on the right track. There is a gene with 4 alleles directly
responsible for the blood type. But to differentiate between races securely
you need to look at a larger number of genes. I recommend reading Nicholas
Wade's 2014 book "A Troublesome Inheritance".
Ari Belenkiy
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 06:09:33 +0000
>
> A predatory publisher could be what Beall intended to describe, but
> the term applies just as well to a publisher making excessive profits.
> When people such as Mark Ware explain in a report of theirs that there
> is no clear notion of excessive profit in a market economy, I believe
> they describe another kind of predation.
>
> As for race, it simply does not exist (except, perhaps, in the USA,
> among a number of other delusions that seem presently to thrive in
> that country). When I encounter a race question in a US form, I
> generally answer: "unknown" or "incomprehensible question". If you pay
> attention to skin colour, where do you draw the line? If we want to do
> precise classifications, albeit in an equally absurd manner, let us
> use blood types, for example.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> ________________________________________
> From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:49:03 -0700
>
> Interesting, here is an attempt to eliminate a useful and quite
> precise terminology - "a predatory publisher." Why - just to get extra
> points in kowtowing to the same powerful forces which silenced Jeffrey
> Beall?
>
> We are informed that "poor" predating publishers are "torn out" by
> dilemma! But it is the same dilemma as all robbers on the Earth face -
> to rob a shop and give a decent life to their progeny - or not.
>
> Some time ago we observed the same trend in anthropology, where the
> standard term "race" appeared "problematic" to some and all tricks
> were applied to eliminate it from the academic parlance.
>
> Ari Belenkiy, PhD
>
> Vancouver BC
> Canada
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 5:39 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:58:06 +0000
> >
> > Hi, Steve —
> >
> > I agree completely that the close association of the term “predatory”
> > with “open access” has long been problematic. As I’ve said over and
> > over, there’s no real connection between open access and predation.
> > What gives rise to predation is not OA, but rather the APC model
> > itself, which creates an inevitable conflict of interest for the
> > publisher: the journal’s interest in generating revenue is in conflict
> > with its interest in publishing only good scholarship.
> >
> > This is one reason I think the term “predatory” itself has outlived
> > its usefulness and should probably be abandoned. The real issue, I
> > think, is deceptiveness, and the standards of honesty that we apply to
> > journal publishers should be applied consistently and transparently
> > across the whole spectrum of publishers, no matter what their business
> > model may be.
> >
> > ---
> > Rick Anderson
> > Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
> > Marriott Library, University of Utah
> > Desk: (801) 587-9989
> > Cell: (801) 721-1687
> > [log in to unmask]
>
|
