From: Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:01:33 -0400 Both Anthony Watkins and Steven Harnard speak from the voice of reason. I held back, noting that several critics had notable conflicts of interest which should have been divulged, namely their own editorship or involvement with journals on Beall's List. If the Moderator approves of sharing a professional reprint, a new article by Jeffrey in "Learned Publishing" has just come out. If sharing of a reprint is not allowed, interested listserve members may write to me for an eprint at <[log in to unmask]> for professional advancement and sharing of scholarship. [N.B. Unfortunately, liblicense-l isn't set up to transmit attachments. The Moderators] Bill On 3/25/13 7:17 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote: From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:14:52 +0000 I am glad that Stefan Harnad has found the statement from Jeffrey. I was about to look for it. I would like to add a few points. I do not think any of the publishers on the Beall list are members of OASPA which has standards that one would expect any OA publisher to accept. The idea that librarians are out to smear OA is really not true. The great majority of librarians are very positive about OA and always have been even if now they are more worried about the realities than they use to be now that realities are more pressing. Look at ARL for example. Jeffrey has in fact often sought advice and at least one publisher has been withdrawn from his list as a result of advice. I have recently been interviewing a whole range of academics of all stages in their academic career and have been surprised by the opposition of or cautious views about most of them seem to have about OA journals. Some are (indirectly) influenced by a certain blog. Most however are just fed up with the invitations to write for, referee for or go on the editorial boards of publishers Jeffrey has marked out: these come at least once a week. Experienced academics know to delete these invitations: inexperienced academics in emerging countries may not know that this is the right response. OK there were predatory journals in the days when the subscription model was more or less the only game in down but e-mail was either not happening or in its infancy and it was expensive to send out lots of letters (remember them!) Anthony -----Original Message----- From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 01:06:13 -0400 Since neither Jan Velterop nor Ken Masters seem to have looked at Jeffrey Beall's published criteria, I append them below: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-ac cess-publishers-2nd-edition/ Stevan Harnad ********************** Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) In August 2012, I published the first edition of my Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. I received many helpful comments and am now publishing a second edition of the work. I am especially grateful to Bill Cohen and Dr. Michael W. Firmin for their helpful suggestions. Also, thanks to all the those who left helpful comments or who sent in emails with suggestions. This document is also available as a PDF. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers By Jeffrey Beall 2nd edition / December 1, 2012 1. Complete an analysis of the publisher's content, practices, and websites according to ethical standards established by membership organizations. A. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) Code of Conduct B. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers [PDF] C. International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) Code of Conduct 2. Complete an analysis of the publisher's content, practices, and websites: contact the publisher if necessary, read statements from the publisher's authors about their experiences with the publisher, and determine whether the publisher commits any of the following practices (below) that are known to be committed by predatory publishers. n.b. Some journals publish independently of any publisher, but in most cases, we evaluate journals that are part of a publisher's fleet. The practices described below are meant to apply both to independent journals and to publishers with multiple journals in their portfolios. [SNIP]