LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 26 May 2013 18:48:02 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2