From: Collette Mak <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:41:00 -0400

thanks(!) for posting, I don't know how I missed that!

There's no question that he comes across as a bitter, venom-spitting
curmudgeon in that opinion piece but it reminded me that we do owe him a
debt of gratitude for shining a spotlight on the very real issue of
predatory publishers and on the potential threat to the rigor of scholarly
publishing.  I disagree with him (and with the excellent LSE blog on
SciHub) that it's a failure of publishing.  I think it's more a failure of
promotion/tenure to have kept pace with a rapidly changing scholarly
communications environment. If you're going to be graded on publications
then people going to want to publish, Adam Smith's invisible hand is going
to meet that market demand.

Guess it's my day to be the curmudgeon and, BTW, get off my lawn

Collette

*Collette Mak*
*Outreach and Scholarly Communications Librarian*

*Hesburgh Libraries *

*University of Notre Dame*
159 Hesburgh Library
Notre Dame, IN 46556
*o:* 574-631-7392 <(574)%20631-7392>
*e: *[log in to unmask]
*orcid:* 0000-0003-4563-8545



On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:37 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:01:18 -0700
>
> Jeffrey Beall of the University of Denver has published, in a serious
> peer-reviewed journal, an article outlining the history of the
> 'predatory list' and his views on the landscape of journal publishing.
>
> http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2017/2/273?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibG
> VfcmVjcw%3D%3D&iid=c80e62cb81974fa6879b869bb6924837&uid=
> 774480907&nid=244+289476616
>
> This link should work as well:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/ydgy4h39
>
> It is one of five pieces on predatory journals in this special issue
> of the journal Biochemia Medica, a distinctive venue.  Here is a link
> that should take you to the special issue:
>
> http://www.biochemia-medica.com/node/830
>
> Beall's unorthodoxy is palpable, his arguments vigorous.  His largest
> concern is with the damage done to the quality of science by the
> profusion of unreliable sources.  He doesn't quite say "fake science!"
> but that is the direction in which he points.  Well worth reading.
>
> Jim O'Donnell
> ASU