From: "Frantsvåg Jan Erik" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:24:51 +0000
Dear professor Guédon,
While I wholeheartedly agree with your point that predatory publishers
exist and thrive also in the TA publishing sector, we don't need to
see Beall's list as yet another attempt to discredit OA publications.
(This is not to say Beall's lists and opinions are not without fault!)
I see this as a useful tool to steer our authors away from dubious
publishers, and in our case to steer funding from our publishing fund
away from them, too.
And I do believe that such attempts as this to weed out low-quality
and non-serious publishers from the rank of OA publishers are a
necessary part of creating a viable OA publishing sector. OA
discreditors won't do that for us, they will use these publishers as
good arguments against OA, whether we have watch lists or not. Better
to have watch lists, to show that we are trying to do something about
it. Then we can ask them what they are doing to police their flock ...
Among the "better" scams are journals and publishers taking OA
content, printing it and wrapping it up and then selling it to
individuals and libraries.
Best,
Jan Erik Frantsvåg
Open Access adviser
The University Library of Tromsø
e-mail [log in to unmask]
http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/
http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/septentrio/
http://www2.uit.no/ansatte/jan.e.frantsvag
Publications:
http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:15:02 -0400
Thank you for this comment, Jan. I was beginning to wonder why the
term "predatory" was assigned to OA ventures only. What is really
needed is a watch-list for all predatory publishers, non-OA as well as
OA. Limiting oneself to OA publishers suspiciously looks like an
attempt (yet another one) to discredit OA publications in general.
Jean-Claude Guédon
--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
Le mercredi 14 mars 2012 à 19:20 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:34:53 +0000
Though the nice thing about OA articles is that they can reside in
many places at once, and so the chances of those articles getting lost
are much lower than if and when a traditional journal or publisher
disappears. Some traditional publishers have made 'living wills', but
not all. And if they haven't, there may be a ©-orphan problem when
they go under. No such problem with OA articles.
The fear of 'predatory' OA journals is a bit of a red herring. There
are also 'predatory' traditional journals. The difference is the prey.
For author-side paid OA journals it's the author; for subscription
journals it's the library AND the author (who may find that his/her
paper has a circulation of only a few hundred, or even less).
So for authors it always is 'caveat emptor', whether publishing in an
OA journal or a subscription journal.
Jan Velterop
**************************************
Drs Johannes (Jan) Velterop, CEO
Academic Concept Knowledge Ltd. (AQnowledge)
Skype: Villavelius
Email: [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
aqnowledge.co
|
