From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 06:56:54 +0200

Hi All

Prof. Beall's list must be taken with a mountain of salt, as it is
fraught with problems.

For example, he makes it clear that he does NOT evaluate at the
journal level, only at publisher level.  How then, we should ask, does
he get to include independent journals on his list?  How then, does he
evaluate article quality?

On the moral side, in which he attempts to take the high ground, he
does not disclose that he is on the editorial board of a journal
published by Taylor & Francis.  He has very effectively used his blog,
Facebook, The Chronicle,  and, inadvertently, this list, to trash the
competition.

There are many other problems with his list, but far too numerous to
repeat on this list.

Regards

Ken

Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman
E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education



On 12 July 2012 21:23, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:01:47 +0100
>
> Jeffrey Beall, a metadata librarian at the University of Colorado
> Denver, maintains a list of what he calls “predatory publishers”. That
> is, publishers who, as Beall puts it, “unprofessionally exploit the
> gold open-access model for their own profit.” Amongst other things,
> this can mean that papers are subjected to little or no peer review
> before they are published.
>
> Currently, Beall’s blog list of predatory publishers lists over 100
> separate companies, and 38 independent journals. And the list is
> growing by 3 to 4 new publishers each week.
>
> Beall’s opening salvo against predatory publishers came in 2009, when
> he published a review of the OA publisher Bentham Open for The
> Charleston Advisor. Since then, he has written further articles on the
> topic, and has been featured twice in The Chronicle of Higher
> Education.
>
> His work on predatory publishers has caused Beall to become seriously
> concerned about the risks attached to gold OA. And he is surprised at
> how little attention these risks get from the research community. As
> he puts it, “I am dismayed that most discussions of gold open-access
> fail to include the quality problems I have documented. Too many OA
> commenters look only at the theory and ignore the practice. We must
> ‘maintain the integrity of the academic record’, and I am doubtful
> that gold open-access is the best long-term way to accomplish that.”
>
> An interview with Jeffrey Beall is available here:
>
> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-interviews-jeffrey-beall-university.html
>
> Richard Poynder