From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:08:19 -0400 I apologize to Ken Masters. I mistakenly took his questions to be directed to Jeffrey Beall rather than to the person who wrote the letter to him. -- Stevan Harnad On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:25 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:16:07 +0400 > > Hi All > > Stevan Harnad wrote: "Since neither Jan Velterop nor Ken Masters seem > to have looked at Jeffrey Beall's published criteria, I append them > below:" > > I'd really like to know how he arrived at that conclusion about me. > My questions were clearly suggested as questions to be directed > towards the person identified as sending the letter concerning Jeffrey > Beall. These are, however, fairly standard questions, and if anyone > wishes to ask them of anyone else (or if Jeffrey Beall wishes to > address those), that's fine by me - there is no copyright on them. > > Perhaps a re-reading of my mail would be appropriate. > > Regards > > Ken > > Dr. Ken Masters > Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics > Medical Education Unit > College of Medicine & Health Sciences > Sultan Qaboos University > Sultanate of Oman > E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education > > > On 24 March 2013 20:23, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 01:06:13 -0400 > > > > >From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]> > > >Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:07:58 +0100 > > > > >The questions Ken Masters suggests are very sensible. Wouldn't it be > > >fair if they were also be asked of Jeffrey Beall when he puts a > > >publisher on his list, effectively alleging that those publishers are > > >'predatory'? Are they? Are they being satisfactorily answered? > > > > >From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]> > > >Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:09:12 +0400 > > > > > >Serious allegations indeed. Perhaps some questions to put to him are: > > > > > >- Do you have actual evidence beyond your own opinions? (Not that > > >one's own opinions are necessarily invalid; it's just good to know > > >their basis, beyond speculation). > > > > > >- Has this evidence (and your conclusions) been verified by other > > >independent professionals? > > > > > >- Is the process by which you have arrived at your conclusions based > > >on established and professionally-recognised procedures, or have you > > >determined these yourself? > > > > > >- As the allegations carry possible implications of criminality, has > > >any of this evidence been shown to law-enforcement officials? If so, > > >what was their reaction; if not, why not? > > > > > >- Do you have any conflict of interest in the matter (Not necessarily > > >financial - conflict of interest can come in many forms, including > > >status and recognition by the various parties involved, and by the > > >broader professional community). > > > > 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-access-publishers-2nd-edition/ > > > > Stevan Harnad > > [snip]