[GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform

[Peter Murray-Rust]

In the Open Knowledge Foundation we have a mailing list for exactly that
purpose and everyone will be very welcome there:

https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access

We take the view that "open access" as defined in  BBB - declarations is
the appropriate use of the term:

BOAI 2002: "By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free
availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read,
download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of
these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or
use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or
technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the
internet itself"

This definition is clear and consistent with many other Open definitions
such as OSI (software) and the Open Knowledge Definition (
http://opendefinition.org/ )

“A piece of data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and
redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute
and/or share-alike.”

Many of us feel that the lax use of "Open" in scholarly publishing causes
great confusion, substandard products, widely differing practices and even
deception and it greatly impoverishes society.

Please join us - you will be welcome to express a wide range of views
without being preached at to change them.


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, BAUIN Serge <Serge.BAUIN at cnrs-dir.fr>wrote:

>  Jeroen,
>
> Which list? Already existing or starting a new one, let us know, I’m quite
> interested, and probably not the only one.
>
> Cheers
>
> Serge
>
>
>
> *De :* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *De la
> part de* Bosman, J.M.
> *Envoyé :* mardi 10 décembre 2013 21:50
> *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Objet :* [GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review
> Reform
>
>
>
> Stevan,
>
>
>
> I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with
> more effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to
> 100% OA. They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop
> thinking and hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly communication, but
> maybe we should take that discussion to another list.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jeroen
>
>
> Op 10 dec. 2013 om 18:46 heeft "Stevan Harnad" <amsciforum at gmail.com> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>  On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris <
> Chris.Armbruster at eui.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Same inkling as Jan & Laurent.  The way fwd for OAP would be some form
> of accreditation by repository & publisher. One would need to show what
> review & quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer
> review and demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is
> what you are doing. The rest can be left to authors, readers and
> reviewers...
>
>
>
> Ah me! Are we going to go yet another round of this irrelevant loop?
> http://j.mp/OAnotPReform
>
>
>
> The purpose of OA (it's not "OAP", it's OA) is to make peer-reviewed
> research freely accessible online to all of its potential users, webwide,
> not just to subscribers -- by freeing peer-reviewed research from access
> tolls, not by freeing it from peer review (nor by first reforming and
> "reassigning" peer review).
>
>
>
> Haven't we already waited long enough?
>
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Laurent Romary
> Datum:10.12.2013 17:31 (GMT+01:00)
> An: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)"
> Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall
> Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List)
>
> Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view.
> As an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts
> online. As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk.
>
> Let us burn together, Jan.
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
>
>  Sally,
>
>
>
> May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded
> heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of
> pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open
> repositories. PPPR is the one thing that keeps the whole publishing system
> standing, and expensive – in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort
> expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those.
> Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may
> have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the
> internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point
> to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to
> public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been
> published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater
> than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status,
> however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more
> examples.
>
>
>
> My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too
> easily used as an excuse to absolve scientists – and science journalists –
> from applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal.
>
>
>
> Doing away with PPPR will do little damage – if any at all – to science,
> but removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific community
> a hell of a lot of money.
>
>
>
> The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn for
> that phrase), so I won't hold my breath.
>
>
>
> Jan Velterop
>
>
>
> On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris <sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>   At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let
> me say that – whatever ithe failings of his article – I thank Jeffrey Beall
> for raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed.
>
>
>
> I would put them under two general headings:
>
>
>
> 1)         What is the objective of OA?
>
>
>
> I originally understood the objective to be to make scholarly research
> articles, in some form, accessible to all those who needed to read them.
> Subsequent refinements such as 'immediately', 'published version' and 'free
> to reuse' may have acquired quasi-religious status, but are surely
> secondary to this main objective.
>
>
>
> However, two other, financial, objectives (linked to each other, but not
> to the above) have gained increasing prominence.  The first is the alleged
> cost saving (or at least cost shifting).  The second - more malicious, and
> originally (but no longer) denied by OA's main proponents - is the
> undermining of publishers' businesses.  If this were to work, we may be
> sure the effects would not be choosy about 'nice' or 'nasty' publishers.
>
>
>
> 2)         Why hasn't OA been widely adopted by now?
>
>
>
> If – as we have been repetitively assured over many years – OA is
> self-evidently the right thing for scholars to do, why have so few of them
> done so voluntarily?  As Jeffrey Beall points out, it seems very curious
> that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to adopt a model which is
> supposedly preferable to the existing one.
>
>
>
> Could it be that the monotonous rantings of the few and the tiresome
> debates about the fine detail are actually confusing scholars, and may even
> be putting them off?  Just asking ;-)
>
>
>
> I don't disagree that the subscription model is not going to be able to
> address the problems we face in making the growing volume of research
> available to those who need it;  but I'm not convinced that OA (whether
> Green, Gold or any combination) will either.  I think the solution, if
> there is one, still eludes us.
>
>
>
> Merry Christmas!
>
>
>
> Sally
>
>
>
> Sally Morris
>
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
>
> Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
>
> Email:  sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org<goal-bounces at eprints.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *David Prosser
> *Sent:* 09 December 2013 22:10
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility
> ofBeall's List
>
> 'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:
>
>
>
>   Wouter,
>
> Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility
> for it.
>
> I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely
> this statement, "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot."
>
> This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote
> it in the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in the
> article, and I have never written such a statement.
>
> Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts.
>
> Jeffrey Beall
>
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org<goal-bounces at eprints.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Gerritsma, Wouter
> *Sent:* Monday, December 09, 2013 2:14 PM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of
> Beall's List
>
> Dear all.
>
> Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall?
>
> He has been victim of a smear campaign before!
>
> I don’t see he has claimed this article on his blog
> http://scholarlyoa.com/ or his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which
> actually functions as his RSS feed).
>
> I really like to hear from the man himself on his own turf.
>
> Wouter
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org<goal-bounces at eprints.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* maandag 9 december 2013 16:04
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of
> Beall's List
>
> Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open
> Access <http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514>.
> TripleC Communication, Capitalism & Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597
> http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514
>
> This wacky article is going to be fun to review. I still think Jeff Beall
> is doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA journals,
> but I now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful conspiracy
> theory! "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot." (Even on a quick skim it is
> evident that Jeff's article is rife with half-truths, errors and downright
> nonsense. Pity. It will diminish the credibility of his valid exposés, but
> maybe this is a good thing, if the judgment and motivation behind Beall's
> list is as kooky as this article! But alas it will now also give the
> genuine "predatory" junk-journals some specious arguments for discrediting
> Jeff's work altogether. Of course it will also give the publishing lobby
> some good sound-bites, but they use them at their peril, because of all the
> other nonsense in which they are nested!)
>
> Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set
> the stage:
>
>  *JB: **"ABSTRACT: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be
> about making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much
> different. The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to
> deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement
> is also actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that
> restrict individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders
> sacrifice the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing
> countries, pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access
> journals.  The open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous
> predatory publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of
> research misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of
> pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science."*
>
> *JB: **"[F]rom their high-salaried comfortable positions…OA advocates...
> demand that for-profit, scholarly journal publishers not be involved in
> scholarly publishing and devise ways (such as green open-access) to defeat
> and eliminate them...*
>
> *JB: **"OA advocates use specious arguments to lobby for mandates,
> focusing only on the supposed economic benefits of open access and ignoring
> the value additions provided by professional publishers. The arguments
> imply that publishers are not really needed; all researchers need to do is
> upload their work, an action that constitutes publishing, and that this act
> results in a product that is somehow similar to the products that
> professional publishers produce….  *
>
> *JB:  **"The open-access movement isn't really about open access.
> Instead, it is about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of
> the press from those who prefer the subscription model of scholarly
> publishing. It is an anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement,
> one that uses young researchers and researchers from developing countries
> as pawns to artificially force the make-believe gold and green open-access
> models to work. The movement relies on unnatural mandates that take free
> choice away from individual researchers, mandates set and enforced by an
> onerous cadre of Soros-funded European autocrats...*
>
> *JB: **"The open-access movement is a failed social movement and a false
> messiah, but its promoters refuse to admit this. The emergence of numerous
> predatory publishers – a product of the open-access movement – has poisoned
> scholarly communication, fostering research misconduct and the publishing
> of pseudo-science, but OA advocates refuse to recognize the growing
> problem. By instituting a policy of exchanging funds between researchers
> and publishers, the movement has fostered corruption on a grand scale.
> Instead of arguing for openaccess, we must determine and settle on the best
> model for the distribution of scholarly research, and it's clear that
> neither green nor gold open-access is that model...*
>
>  And then, my own personal favourites:
>
>  *JB: **"Open access advocates think they know better than everyone else
> and want to impose their policies on others. Thus, the open access movement
> has the serious side-effect of taking away other's freedom from them. We
> observe this tendency in institutional mandates.  Harnad (2013) goes so far
> as to propose [an]…Orwellian system of mandates… documented [in a] table of
> mandate strength, with the most restrictive pegged at level 12, with the
> designation "immediate deposit + performance evaluation (no waiver
> option)". This Orwellian system of mandates is documented in Table 1...  *
>
> *JB: **"A social movement that needs mandates to work is doomed to fail.
> A social movement that uses mandates is abusive and tantamount to academic
> slavery. Researchers need more freedom in their decisions not less. How can
> we expect and demand academic freedom from our universities when we impose
> oppressive mandates upon ourselves?..."*
>
>   Stay tuned!…
>
> *Stevan Harnad*
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> Laurent Romary
>
> INRIA & HUB-IDSL
>
> laurent.romary at inria.fr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131211/bca29484/attachment-0001.html