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

[Jenny Molloy]

Hi Serge

The open science list at the Open Knowledge Foundation is always happy to
host discussions on innovation in scholarly publishing
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science (600+ members)
Post-publication peer review and open peer review are well within our
interests.

The Force11 community also has a discussion forum for the future of
research communication (120+ members)
http://www.force11.org/discussions

Jenny

Jenny Molloy
Coordinator, Open Science Working Group
Open Knowledge Foundation





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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131211/2dc91e85/attachment-0001.html