From: "Smith, Kevin L" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:55:09 +0000

I wonder if the author of this deeply-flawed piece would, upon discovering
that his new car was a lemon, first blame all cars of that make, without
evidence, for having the same problem, and then, instead of trying a
different make of car, conclude that the solution should be to return to a
horse and buggy?



First, of course, unethical or incompetent business practices can be found
across the various business models in the publishing industry.  APC-based
publishing opened the door to a new form of unethical practice, but it did
not convert a pure and innocent industry into a swamp.  The crocodiles were
already living there, just feeding in different ways.


Second, Beall did not encounter difficulties with his list because creating
a blacklist is inherently “risky,” but because his list was biased,
reflecting his radical views about the economics of publishing.  A better,
more objective, list might fare better, although I continue to believe that
such lists are inherently inadequate.



I do agree with the author about one thing.  A lot of problems could be
solved if academic institutions were more vigilant in reviewing publication
records.  But just comparing a CV to a blacklist would create as many
problems as it would solve; it still suffers from the fundamental flaw of
out-sourcing faculty evaluation to external entities, whether publishers or
list-compilers, who have their own agendas that are different from, and
often incompatible with, those of universities and colleges.  We should
focus on actually doing the work of judging the scholarly output of
colleagues on its own terms, applying the norms of the discipline and the
institution.



Kevin



Kevin L. Smith, J.D.

Dean of Libraries

University of Kansas






From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:38:34 -0700

The Economist's occasional correspondent on scholarly communication
has reported again:

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/
06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so

Two points of interest were an update on the post-Beall listing issue
(Cabell's has their list, but Beall's list is being kept up by someone
who refuses to be identified?) and the report that some journals with
sketchy practices are learning to simulate virtue by occasionally
retracting articles (Economist calls this 'a superb piece of
subterfuge').  The article credits a shift to APC-based OA as a
contributor to the problem (by encouraging new entrants on the
publisher side) and the article then concludes:

"One far-fetched solution is a return to journal subscriptions.  These
have for so long been excoriated as rent-seeking profit-inflators
restricting the flow of information that a change of course would now
be unthinkable.  But those who pushed for their elimination might be
wise to pause for thought.  As the old proverb has it, be careful what
you wish for.  You might get it."

Jim O'Donnell
ASU