From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:26:55 -0700 I cannot agree more with Fred Jenkins' observation about "religious fervor" associated with OA. In the "first" part of this thread on Bohannon's article I proposed a simple statistical test for the major "red rag" of OA's proponents - the Beall's list. I made some assumptions and proposed several different ways to discuss the problem. There was no response to that message. Are there any reactions or comments? I would welcome them. Ari Belenkiy SFU Canada > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> From: Fred Jenkins <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:34:24 -0400 >> >> Fred Friend is, of course, entitled to his opinion. I don't think >> there is anything unfair (or inaccurate) in the observation that many >> OA advocates immediately circle the wagons whenever OA journals are >> criticized, whether rightly or wrongly. It would be much easier to >> have productive conversations about OA if it were not a matter of >> religious fervor to so many. >> >> Re. Thomas Krichel's message: Plagiarism is only one problem and of >> much less concern than articles that are just wrong or based on cooked >> evidence. Robots are not so likely to solve that aspect of failed >> peer review. And, in response to Scott, I certainly don't exempt the >> toll journals from this failing. We see far to many retracted papers >> in ostensibly sound, respected journals. More of them should have >> been caught before publication. It will never be a perfect system, >> but it has to be better than this. >> >> Fred W. Jenkins, Ph.D. >> Professor and Associate Dean for Collections and Operations >> University of Dayton Libraries >> 106A Roesch Library >> 300 College Park >> Dayton, OH 45469-1360