From: "Frantsvåg Jan Erik" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:24:51 +0000 Dear professor Guédon, While I wholeheartedly agree with your point that predatory publishers exist and thrive also in the TA publishing sector, we don't need to see Beall's list as yet another attempt to discredit OA publications. (This is not to say Beall's lists and opinions are not without fault!) I see this as a useful tool to steer our authors away from dubious publishers, and in our case to steer funding from our publishing fund away from them, too. And I do believe that such attempts as this to weed out low-quality and non-serious publishers from the rank of OA publishers are a necessary part of creating a viable OA publishing sector. OA discreditors won't do that for us, they will use these publishers as good arguments against OA, whether we have watch lists or not. Better to have watch lists, to show that we are trying to do something about it. Then we can ask them what they are doing to police their flock ... Among the "better" scams are journals and publishers taking OA content, printing it and wrapping it up and then selling it to individuals and libraries. Best, Jan Erik Frantsvåg Open Access adviser The University Library of Tromsø e-mail [log in to unmask] http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/ http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/septentrio/ http://www2.uit.no/ansatte/jan.e.frantsvag Publications: http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns -----Opprinnelig melding----- 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