From: Michael Magoulias <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:57:28 +0000 We're getting somewhere now. Beall's real failings were that he did not allow his project to be co-opted by the so-called Open Access movement via collaboration with the DOAJ, and that he failed to heed the injunctions of Jean-Claude Guedon. It's hard to see either one of these as either legitimate or damaging complaints. Why should he have collaborated with DOAJ? It's a community-curated list that declares its bias by stating that it will not "discuss individual publishers or applications with members of the public unless we believe that, by doing so, we will be making a positive contribution to the open access community." So much for transparency and freedom from bias. If it is perfectly reasonable for an OA advocacy group and a platform company to maintain their own lists, why can't an individual scholar? If one compares the stated principles of Beall's List, one finds much more expansive and rigorous criteria than anything in the DOAJ. Would that the majority of non-standard journals were even half as forthcoming about their editorial policies. For those who are curious, the relevant link is here. http://beallslist.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/9/5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf Not only is Beall clear and thorough in explaining his criteria, but he is admirably undogmatic in his approach. The website's homepage begins with: "This is a list of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers. We recommend that scholars read the available reviews, assessments and descriptions provided here, and then decide for themselves whether they want to submit articles, serve as editors or on editorial boards. In a few cases, non-open access publishers whose practices match those of predatory publishers have been added to the list as well." All reference works are of necessity a reflection of the time when they were first created or subsequently updated. Beall takes account of this by recognizing "that journal publishers and journals change in their business and editorial practices over time. This list is kept up-to-date to the best extent possible but may not reflect sudden, unreported, or unknown enhancements." This statement therefore opens up the possibility that an additional salutary effect of the list was to stimulate more professional practices among publishers and journal that unintentionally found themselves in unsavory company. A journal that really was "bona fide" might have improved its operations to the point where it remedied the defects that got it originally placed on the list. With all this care taken to explain the nature of the list, it is understandable, but far from convincing, that an advocate of non-standard journal publishing should want to discredit Beall's activities. The fact that the universally accepted badness of the practices of predatory publishes are typically, but not always, found in titles claiming the OA designation is obviously a source of embarrassment and concern to that community. What is unacceptable is to seek to attempt to undermine the validity of the list through the use of unsupported assertion, personal attack, slipshod arguments, innuendo, and lack of evidence. One might also add nonsensical metaphor. Many have found a watery grave, but I'm not aware of any cases of death by muddied waters. It is equally unacceptable to seek to silence, or rejoice in the silencing of, a voice with which one disagrees. Unfortunately, there is a tendency, shown frequently on this listserv, for those who are formally part of the scholarly community to argue in favor of non-traditional journal publishing in a manner that subverts academic norms and values and that also undermines the principles of academic freedom. The 1940 statement of those principles by the American Association of University Professors declares that "teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results." (One might also argue that the mandate of RCUK to have the research that they have funded published only in journals that are compliant with their own OA policies circumscribes academic freedom in this regard.) The really interesting question that has not been appropriately pursued is what exactly were the circumstances that led to Beall's list being discontinued? In many places and in many different contexts academic freedom is under threat, so it is naturally a source of speculation that something along those lines happened in this case. The Inside Higher Ed article in January referenced "threats and politics" as the reasons, and Beall's institution was quick to state that it did not impose the decision upon him, but these statements only make the need for a clear answer all the more pressing. Michael Magoulias Director, Journals University of Chicago Press -----Original Message----- From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:34:18 -0400 Beall's list could have done so much good work if he had accepted collaborating with other, complementary, organizations, such as DOAJ. I suggested this to him, once, but in vain. he did not even respond or explain why he would not do such a thing. It must never be forgotten that Beall's list never clearly distinguished between bad publications and open access publications, particularly if the latter did not originate with a well known, preferably Western-based, publisher. Hindawi temporarily fell victim to this kind of behaviour. So did the Scielo platform, once described as publishing "favelas" by Beall. By muddying th waters as much as he did, Beall did at least as much harm as he did good. Jean-Claude Guidon Le jeudi 08 juin 2017 à 20:09 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit : From: Byron Russell <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:17:53 +0000 I quite agree. It was too easy (or lazy?) to see the list as being the go-to place for information about predatory publishers, several of whom – bona fide academic publishers – are hosted by Ingenta Connect, which gave rise to some concern as to what exactly the compiler’s parameters were. Like the DOAJ, we prefer to carry our own vetting procedures when approached by new publishers seeking our hosting services. Byron Byron Russell Head of Ingenta Connect Ingenta Tel. +44 (0)1865 397881 Mob. +44 (0)7900 494258 From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 07:20:05 +0000 Indeed. And the lives and livelihoods of some of people who worked for the publishers that were arbitrarily targeted by the list were affected. There is no excuse for harassment, but there must be an acknowledgement that Beall’s whims had negative consequences, consequences that we magnified by the importance we collectively gave to the list . David