[GOAL] Re: Bohannon study: No damage

[Graham Triggs]

On 13 October 2013 20:53, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:

> It would be nice if we could all agree to stop conflating OA with Gold OA!
>

It would be nice if we could all agree to stop conflating Green with OA.
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess

"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"

Public access *is* important - it just shouldn't be conflated, imho.

But different strokes...

It would also be good to distinguish pay-to-publish Gold OA from
> non-pay-to-publish Gold OA, though it has to be admitted that the Gold OA
> journals that most of the controversy (not just Junk, but Finch) is about
> are the pay-to-publish Gold OA journals, whether junk or not.
>

Fewer than half of the pay-to-publish journals listed by DOAJ accepted the
article.
Almost all of the known / suspected questionable journals listed by Beall
accepted the article.

So it has nothing to do with being pay-to-publish Gold OA. If you submit to
a known/suspected questionable journal, you are very, very likely to get a
questionable outcome.

For everything else, your experience will vary.

G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131013/721d7812/attachment.html