From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:41:28 +0400

Sandy says:
---

Perhaps because, for a truly predatory OA publisher, no service is
being rendered (no real peer review, no copyediting, etc.) whereas a
traditional publisher may still be delivering print as well as
electronic and actually conducting true peer review as well as
providing copyediting?

----

I'm glad that assumption was qualified with a "perhaps".  That sounds
nice, but what if an OA journal DOES render these services?  Beall's
list contains lists of publishers, so, if a journal can prove this
(assuming there are criteria for this proof), it still sits on his
list simply because the publisher is listed there.

Because one of the fundamental flaws in the list is that it assumes
things like peer-review rest with the publisher.  (I'm basing that
statement on the fact that publishers are listed on the grounds that
their journals appear to lack peer-review).  But peer-review rests
with the editor and reviewers, not with the publisher.  Beall either
does not know that, or simply chooses to ignore it.

Disclaimer: Editor of an OA journal.

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 27 May 2013 02:55, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:28:38 -0500
>
> Perhaps because, for a truly predatory OA publisher, no service is
> being rendered (no real peer review, no copyediting, etc.) whereas a
> traditional publisher may still be delivering print as well as
> electronic and actually conducting true peer review as well as
> providing copyediting?
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> At 7:15 PM -0400 5/23/13, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> > From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:44:50 +0400
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> >>  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,
> >
> >
> > Indeed, why is it predatory when an OA publisher requests payment of a
> > few HUNDRED dollars to make an article OA, but NOT predatory when a
> > "traditional" publisher requires a few THOUSAND dollars to make an
> > article OA?
> >
> > Disclaimer: Editor of an OA journal
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ken