Current Liblicense Archive - Re: More on the $1 Billion Lawsuit Against Jeffey Beall

List archives since November 2011, after the list migrated to the Center for Research Libraries.


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  June 2013

LIBLICENSE-L June 2013

Subject:

Re: More on the $1 Billion Lawsuit Against Jeffey Beall

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 3 Jun 2013 21:38:15 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (46 lines)

From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:02:46 +0400

Hi All

Sandy says:
> Beall's complaint is not that predatory publishers are profiting but
that they are extracting money from the system of scholarly
communication while providing no significant service in return.

And until he can provide proper and verifiable proof of this, then his
complaint has no value at all.

Regards

Ken

Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman


On 3 June 2013 03:19, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 22:27:45 -0500
>
> Of course, the world is not quite so simple and clear-cut as Ken makes
> it out to be. E.g., there are some journals where the peer review is
> done by the publisher's staff, who are themselves experts in the field
> with Ph.D.s. And when we get to talking about OA monograph publishing,
> then all peer review (except that done by the editors of special book
> series) is done by the publishing staff in conjunction with the
> external reviewers whom they engage. And that kind of peer review is
> compensated, not done for free.
>
> Beall's complaint is not that predatory publishers are profiting but
> that they are extracting money from the system of scholarly
> communication while providing no significant service in return. At
> least "greedy" commercial publishers are providing real services that
> have value!
>
> Sandy

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1