From: David Groenewegen <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:52:17 +1000 In response to the question of why the list disappeared Beall writes "facing intense pressure from my employer, the University of Colorado Denver, and fearing for my job, I shut down the blog and removed all its content from the blog platform" in this recent article: http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2017/2/273 It's well worth reading, and both pro- and anti- Beall folks will find plenty of ammunition in it. D -- DAVID GROENEWEGEN Director, Research Library Monash University Information Services Building 40 Exhibition Walk, Clayton Campus Wellington Road Clayton VIC 3168 AUSTRALIA T: +61 3 9902 0570 M: +61 (0) 409 969 658 E: [log in to unmask] @groenewegendave monash.edu On 13/06/2017 8:12 AM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > > 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