From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:49:03 -0700

Interesting, here is an attempt to eliminate a useful and quite
precise terminology - "a predatory publisher." Why - just to get extra
points in kowtowing to the same powerful forces which silenced Jeffrey
Beall?

We are informed that "poor" predating publishers are "torn out" by
dilemma! But it is the same dilemma as all robbers on the Earth face -
to rob a shop and give a decent life to their progeny - or not.

Some time ago we observed the same trend in anthropology, where the
standard term "race" appeared "problematic" to some and all tricks
were applied to eliminate it from the academic parlance.

Ari Belenkiy, PhD

Vancouver BC
Canada


On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 5:39 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:58:06 +0000
>
> Hi, Steve —
>
> I agree completely that the close association of the term “predatory”
> with “open access” has long been problematic. As I’ve said over and
> over, there’s no real connection between open access and predation.
> What gives rise to predation is not OA, but rather the APC model
> itself, which creates an inevitable conflict of interest for the
> publisher: the journal’s interest in generating revenue is in conflict
> with its interest in publishing only good scholarship.
>
> This is one reason I think the term “predatory” itself has outlived
> its usefulness and should probably be abandoned. The real issue, I
> think, is deceptiveness, and the standards of honesty that we apply to
> journal publishers should be applied consistently and transparently
> across the whole spectrum of publishers, no matter what their business
> model may be.
>
> ---
> Rick Anderson
> Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
> Marriott Library, University of Utah
> Desk: (801) 587-9989
> Cell: (801) 721-1687
> [log in to unmask]