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