From: David Groenewegen <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:52:17 +1000

In response to the question of why the list disappeared Beall writes
"facing intense pressure from my employer, the University of Colorado
Denver, and fearing for my job, I shut down the blog and removed all
its content from the blog platform" in this recent article:

http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2017/2/273

It's well worth reading, and both pro- and anti- Beall folks will find
plenty of ammunition in it.

D
--
DAVID GROENEWEGEN
Director, Research

Library
Monash University
Information Services Building
40 Exhibition Walk, Clayton Campus
Wellington Road
Clayton VIC 3168
AUSTRALIA

T: +61 3 9902 0570
M: +61 (0) 409 969 658
E: [log in to unmask]
@groenewegendave
monash.edu

On 13/06/2017 8:12 AM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: Michael Magoulias <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:57:28 +0000
>
> We're getting somewhere now. Beall's real failings were that he did
> not allow his project to be co-opted by the so-called Open Access
> movement via collaboration with the DOAJ, and that he failed to heed
> the injunctions of Jean-Claude Guedon.  It's hard to see either one of
> these as either legitimate or damaging complaints.
>
> Why should he have collaborated with DOAJ? It's a community-curated
> list that declares its bias by stating that it will not "discuss
> individual publishers or applications with members of the public
> unless we believe that, by doing so, we will be making a positive
> contribution to the open access community."  So much for transparency
> and freedom from bias.  If it is perfectly reasonable for an OA
> advocacy group and a platform company to maintain their own lists, why
> can't an individual scholar?
>
> If one compares the stated principles of Beall's List, one finds much
> more expansive and rigorous criteria than anything in the DOAJ.  Would
> that the majority of non-standard journals were even half as
> forthcoming about their editorial policies.  For those who are
> curious, the relevant link is here.
> http://beallslist.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/9/5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf
>
> Not only is Beall clear and thorough in explaining his criteria, but
> he is admirably undogmatic in his approach. The website's homepage
> begins with: "This is a list of questionable, scholarly open-access
> publishers.  We recommend that scholars read the available reviews,
> assessments and descriptions provided here, and then decide for
> themselves whether they want to submit articles, serve as editors or
> on editorial boards.  In a few cases, non-open access publishers whose
> practices match those of predatory publishers have been added to the
> list as well."
>
> All reference works are of necessity a reflection of the time when
> they were first created or subsequently updated.  Beall takes account
> of this by recognizing "that journal publishers and journals change in
> their business and editorial practices over time.  This list is kept
> up-to-date to the best extent possible but may not reflect sudden,
> unreported, or unknown enhancements."  This statement therefore opens
> up the possibility that an additional salutary effect of the list was
> to stimulate more professional practices among publishers and journal
> that unintentionally found themselves in unsavory company.  A journal
> that really was "bona fide" might have improved its operations to the
> point where it remedied the defects that got it originally placed on
> the list.
>
> With all this care taken to explain the nature of the list, it is
> understandable, but far from convincing, that an advocate of
> non-standard journal publishing should want to discredit Beall's
> activities.  The fact that the universally accepted badness of the
> practices of predatory publishes are typically, but not always, found
> in titles claiming the OA designation is obviously a source of
> embarrassment and concern to that community.
>
> What is unacceptable is to seek to attempt to undermine the validity
> of the list through the use of unsupported assertion, personal attack,
> slipshod arguments, innuendo, and lack of evidence.  One might also
> add nonsensical metaphor.  Many have found a watery grave, but I'm not
> aware of any cases of death by muddied waters.
>
> It is equally unacceptable to seek to silence, or rejoice in the
> silencing of, a voice with which one disagrees.  Unfortunately, there
> is a tendency, shown frequently on this listserv, for those who are
> formally part of the scholarly community to argue in favor of
> non-traditional journal publishing in a manner that subverts academic
> norms and values and that also undermines the principles of academic
> freedom.  The 1940 statement of those principles by the American
> Association of University Professors declares that "teachers are
> entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the
> results."  (One might also argue that the mandate of RCUK to have the
> research that they have funded published only in journals that are
> compliant with their own OA policies circumscribes academic freedom in
> this regard.)
>
> The really interesting question that has not been appropriately
> pursued is what exactly were the circumstances that led to Beall's
> list being discontinued?  In many places and in many different
> contexts academic freedom is under threat, so it is naturally a source
> of speculation that something along those lines happened in this case.
> The Inside Higher Ed article in January referenced "threats and
> politics" as the reasons, and Beall's institution was quick to state
> that it did not impose the decision upon him, but these statements
> only make the need for a clear answer all the more pressing.
>
> Michael Magoulias
> Director, Journals
> University of Chicago Press
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:34:18 -0400
>
> Beall's list could have done so much good work if he had accepted
> collaborating with other, complementary, organizations, such as DOAJ.
> I suggested this to him, once, but in vain. he did not even respond or
> explain why he would not do such a thing.
>
> It must never be forgotten that Beall's list never clearly
> distinguished between bad publications and open access publications,
> particularly if the latter did not originate with a well known,
> preferably Western-based, publisher. Hindawi temporarily fell victim
> to this kind of behaviour. So did the Scielo platform, once described
> as publishing "favelas" by Beall. By muddying th waters as much as he
> did, Beall did at least as much harm as he did good.
>
> Jean-Claude Guidon