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


> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:18:12 +0000
>
> It seems obviously true, to me, that all journals, whether OA or
> subscription-bassed, should be judged on their merits.  And also that
> there are predatory practices amongst some journal publishers of both
> types.  My principal objection to Beall's list is that it is critical of
> only some of those practices, based on the business model employed.  Why
> is to predatory to ask an author to pay a few hundred dollars in
> processing charges for open access, but not predatory to increase a small
> college's subscription to a single journal 300% overnight (which has
> happened several times, in my experience, when small society journals are
> bought by large commercial publishers)?  Why is shoddy or non-existent
> peer-review predatory at an OA journal, but not when it is discovered in a
> "traditional" journal from a commercial publisher (as it sometimes is)?
>
> It is also true, by the way, that bloggers need to be careful about
> defamation.  Some of Beall's criticisms of specific publishers are
> stronger than I would be comfortable making.  I hope and am prepared to
> believe that he has evidence for what he says, since truth is always a
> defense against defamation, at least in US courts.  But the post I found
> recently about OMICS was pretty vague -- mentioning "evidence" without
> specification and quoting a single anonymous scientist.  So I feel
> obligated to withhold judgment about the specific accusation, while hoping
> that the threat is just a bluff or that Jeffrey can rebuff it. I hope this
> mostly because of the chilling effect that such threats can have on the
> free exchange of ideas about scholarly publishing, independently of what I
> personally think about the value of Beall's own contribution to that
> exchange.
>
> Kevin
>
> Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
> Director of Copyright and Scholarly Communications
> Duke University Libraries
> Durham, NC 27708
> [log in to unmask]