From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:31:21 -0700 Well, I didn't expect my straightforward analogy with "race" would cause such an ire. But let me tackle it seriously. > As for race, it simply does not exist (except, perhaps, in the USA, among a number of other delusions that seem presently to thrive in that country). The races existed for centuries and suddenly disappeared? Like in a fairy tale? > When I encounter a race question in a US form, I generally answer: "unknown" or "incomprehensible question". Usually, this question is directly related to the different promotions or bonuses to the "disadvantages". So responding ambiguously, you pretend to be qualified for them. > If you pay attention to skin colour, where do you draw the line? The CULTURE. Just look at the African and European states and compare. > If we want to do precise classifications, albeit in an equally absurd manner, let us use blood types, for example. Yes, you are on the right track. There is a gene with 4 alleles directly responsible for the blood type. But to differentiate between races securely you need to look at a larger number of genes. I recommend reading Nicholas Wade's 2014 book "A Troublesome Inheritance". Ari Belenkiy On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 06:09:33 +0000 > > A predatory publisher could be what Beall intended to describe, but > the term applies just as well to a publisher making excessive profits. > When people such as Mark Ware explain in a report of theirs that there > is no clear notion of excessive profit in a market economy, I believe > they describe another kind of predation. > > As for race, it simply does not exist (except, perhaps, in the USA, > among a number of other delusions that seem presently to thrive in > that country). When I encounter a race question in a US form, I > generally answer: "unknown" or "incomprehensible question". If you pay > attention to skin colour, where do you draw the line? If we want to do > precise classifications, albeit in an equally absurd manner, let us > use blood types, for example. > > Jean-Claude Guédon > ________________________________________ > From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:49:03 -0700 > > Interesting, here is an attempt to eliminate a useful and quite > precise terminology - "a predatory publisher." Why - just to get extra > points in kowtowing to the same powerful forces which silenced Jeffrey > Beall? > > We are informed that "poor" predating publishers are "torn out" by > dilemma! But it is the same dilemma as all robbers on the Earth face - > to rob a shop and give a decent life to their progeny - or not. > > Some time ago we observed the same trend in anthropology, where the > standard term "race" appeared "problematic" to some and all tricks > were applied to eliminate it from the academic parlance. > > Ari Belenkiy, PhD > > Vancouver BC > Canada > > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 5:39 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:58:06 +0000 > > > > Hi, Steve — > > > > I agree completely that the close association of the term “predatory” > > with “open access” has long been problematic. As I’ve said over and > > over, there’s no real connection between open access and predation. > > What gives rise to predation is not OA, but rather the APC model > > itself, which creates an inevitable conflict of interest for the > > publisher: the journal’s interest in generating revenue is in conflict > > with its interest in publishing only good scholarship. > > > > This is one reason I think the term “predatory” itself has outlived > > its usefulness and should probably be abandoned. The real issue, I > > think, is deceptiveness, and the standards of honesty that we apply to > > journal publishers should be applied consistently and transparently > > across the whole spectrum of publishers, no matter what their business > > model may be. > > > > --- > > Rick Anderson > > Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication > > Marriott Library, University of Utah > > Desk: (801) 587-9989 > > Cell: (801) 721-1687 > > [log in to unmask] >