From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:15:02 -0400 Thank you for this comment, Jan. I was beginning to wonder why the term "predatory" was assigned to OA ventures only. What is really needed is a watch-list for all predatory publishers, non-OA as well as OA. Limiting oneself to OA publishers suspiciously looks like an attempt (yet another one) to discredit OA publications in general. Jean-Claude Guédon -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le mercredi 14 mars 2012 à 19:20 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit : From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:34:53 +0000 Though the nice thing about OA articles is that they can reside in many places at once, and so the chances of those articles getting lost are much lower than if and when a traditional journal or publisher disappears. Some traditional publishers have made 'living wills', but not all. And if they haven't, there may be a ©-orphan problem when they go under. No such problem with OA articles. The fear of 'predatory' OA journals is a bit of a red herring. There are also 'predatory' traditional journals. The difference is the prey. For author-side paid OA journals it's the author; for subscription journals it's the library AND the author (who may find that his/her paper has a circulation of only a few hundred, or even less). So for authors it always is 'caveat emptor', whether publishing in an OA journal or a subscription journal. Jan Velterop ************************************** Drs Johannes (Jan) Velterop, CEO Academic Concept Knowledge Ltd. (AQnowledge) Skype: Villavelius Email: [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] aqnowledge.co