From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 21:18:47 -0400

You should know that this dataset is deeply flawed, and that many of us who were cited in the database did not actually receive Google funding in any way. A number of us have submitted requests for retraction or correction, and to my knowledge they have not yet done so. 

Here's an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that discusses just a few of the issues that were presented. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635

Among other things, the entity that did this report won't reveal its own funding, but we do know that Oracle (one of Google's competitors in various litigations) is one of their bankrollers, and presumably the commissioner of this particular report. 

I'd be happy to talk about my own inclusion in the database if anyone wants to discuss it (short answer: I have never received Google funding) but their methodology was deeply flawed in multiple ways. I very much would like some corporate accountability research, but unfortunately this effort is (from what it appears to me) more of a rival-funded industry hit piece than a scholarly or activist look at this issue. 

Laura

----------------------------------
Laura Quilter / [log in to unmask]



On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:03 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:04:21 -0700

This is about two weeks old, but I'm just catching up and thought it relevant to liblicense:


What seems interesting and relevant here is that a variety of powerful influences now surround the academic eco-system, all seeking to shape (I almost said distort) either the work or the public perception of the work of academics to the advantage of the commercial provider.  

Now, I suppose we should be grateful that academic work thus shows its value to the world -- we're worth manipulating.  (I once heard the CEO of a famous brand of wardrobe accessories describe the firm's comeback from the dead.  He was glad when knockoffs started showing up at street markets because it meant the brand was worth knocking off again.)  But that's hardly consoling.  

My point is just that the 'predatory publishers' argument, among others, makes sense not as a weird anomalous thing that happens in the world of OA but is part of a larger struggle over the meaning and value of what we do.

Jim O'Donnell
Arizona State University