From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:26:55 -0700

I cannot agree more with Fred Jenkins' observation about "religious
fervor" associated with OA.

In the "first" part of this thread on Bohannon's article I proposed a
simple statistical test for the major "red rag" of OA's proponents -
the Beall's list.

I made some assumptions and proposed several different ways to discuss
the problem.

There was no response to that message.  Are there any reactions or
comments?  I would welcome them.

Ari Belenkiy

SFU
Canada


> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Fred Jenkins <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:34:24 -0400
>>
>> Fred Friend is, of course, entitled to his opinion.  I don't think
>> there is anything unfair (or inaccurate) in the observation that many
>> OA advocates immediately circle the wagons whenever OA journals are
>> criticized, whether rightly or wrongly.  It would be much easier to
>> have productive conversations about OA if it were not a matter of
>> religious fervor to so many.
>>
>> Re.  Thomas Krichel's message: Plagiarism is only one problem and of
>> much less concern than articles that are just wrong or based on cooked
>> evidence.  Robots are not so likely to solve that aspect of failed
>> peer review.  And, in response to Scott, I certainly don't exempt the
>> toll journals from this failing.  We see far to many retracted papers
>> in ostensibly sound, respected journals.  More of them should have
>> been caught before publication.  It will never be a perfect system,
>> but it has to be better than this.
>>
>> Fred W. Jenkins, Ph.D.
>> Professor and Associate Dean for Collections and Operations
>> University of Dayton Libraries
>> 106A Roesch Library
>> 300 College Park
>> Dayton, OH 45469-1360