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]


On 5/21/13 6:46 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:19:39 +0100
>
>I found the comments that followed Rick's sensible post disturbing. There
>was little support and some (to my mind) unfounded criticisms. Beall is
>doing a serious job in my view.
>
>I happen to believe that open access journals should be judged on their
>merits. At present it is clear to me (I have interviewed a lot of
>academics)
>that the constant stream of invitations from the predatory journals are
>causing many scholars to believe that there is something intrinsically
>wrong with people paying to publish.
>
>I hope that the OA establishment will be able to find some way to distance
>themselves from the people setting up journals without proper peer review.
>
>Anthony
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 08:50:09 -0400
>
>More notes on the lawsuit threat against Jeffrey Beal by the always-astute
>Rick Anderson on today's Scholarly Kitchen blog.
>
>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/05/20/high-noon-a-publisher-threat
>en
>s-to-lunch-a-criminal-case-against-librarian-critic/
>
>Rick notes the full-text of the threatening letter itself is posted with
>Jeffrey's permission on InfoDocket:
>
>http://www.scribd.com/doc/141670507/OMICS-Publishing-Notice-to-Jeffrey-Bea
>ll
>
>Below are the posts made by Beall relating to this issue.
>
>http://scholarlyoa.com/?s=perry
>
>http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/02/12/omics-ineptly-uses-social-media-to-promo
>te
>-its-brands/
>
>http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/01/25/omics-predatory-meetings/
>
>
>Bill Cohen, Founding Publisher
>The Haworth Press, Inc.