[GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[Michael Schwartz]

Well stated, Jean-Claude.

I was not speaking in my role as a psychiatrist here - I speak as an advocate of open access - but substantially less enthusiastic than I was years ago.

And you folks DO have a lot of power... 
So does Beall's list of Predatory Publishers. 

Yes everyone and all of us are imperfect yadda yadda but Beall's list has played an important - even necessary role in my world and I hope in yours too. 

What is needed is a way to get all you folks in the same room and on the same page (there have to be some such page).  I vote for that and I'd work for that!!

Michael Schwartz

Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine (But don't worry, I really don't psychoanalyze colleagues)

Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine (a perhaps parochial but none the less illuminating experience about open access along with my involvement in another once-upon-a-time-now-dead-and-REALLY-GONE-journal)

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 14, 2015, at 11:14 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca> wrote:
> 
> Surprisingly, Dr. Schwartz has not yet noticed that a rather open and vigorous debate about OA has been going on for the better part of two decades, including debates among OA supporters. Mr. Beall is absolutely welcomed in this debate, so long as he debates (as opposed to taking potshots, for example).
> 
> Furthermore, what I was doing was not intervening in  an OA debate; it was simply reacting to Mr. Beall's defamatory comment about DOAJ  (I am not too surprised... etc.).
> 
> DOAJ is an open, transparent, organization that tries to put some good information about OA journals. It has limited resources and it relies on a number of volunteers; in short, it does its best in a very honest fashion. It is not perfect, but few things are perfect in this vale of tears...
> 
> Those who see mistakes in the DOAJ list should do as those who see mistakes in Wikipedia: rather than criticize the device, help correct the content.
> 
> As for the alleged bullying dimension of my statement, I could not even begin to comment. I do not have the psychiatric credentials of Dr. Schwartz, and would not know how to handle categories that seem to change significantly every decade or so. Let me be clear, however, on one crucial point: bullying (as I understand this term - i.e. a strong individual imposing his/her will on another individual ) was not among my intentions. I was simply rising to the defence of an organization that was inappropriately attacked. It may just be that one's "vigour" is felt by the other as "bullying", but then what about a "vigorous ... debate"?
> 
> In conclusion, thank you for the "powerful partisan" characterization: this is an evaluation I would never have dared make about myself. <face-smile.png> 
> 
> --
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal
> 
> 
>> Le jeudi 14 mai 2015 à 09:14 -0500, Michael Schwartz a écrit :
>> Jean-Claude Guédon's comment on Jeffrey Beall's Blog is "totally mean spirited....small." 
>> The many ongoing changes, consolidations, and innovations associated with open access require vigorous, open, and respectful debate. Presently in today's OA, we see the good...the bad...and the ugly. There is no "slam dunk" here. And, sadly, there is precious little debate. I wonder why...
>> Critics such as Jeffrey Beall should be welcomed, not shamed. Gratuitous insulting comments about their character are inappropriate, to say the least. And the more powerful and influential the bully the more inappropriate.
>> As long as powerful partisan's hammer away from their bully pulpit - without reproach, a really vigorous and open debate - which MUST occur for all sorts of reasons - cannot and will not happen. How sad....
>> Michael Schwartz
>> Michael Schwartz, MD
>> Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
>> A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine
>> Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On May 14, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca> wrote:
>>> In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes:
>>> 
>>> "I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake impact factors and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:.."
>>> 
>>> This is totally mean spirited. This is small.
>>> 
>>> DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to review the quality of journals. If Mr. Beall devoted a small fraction of his admirable energy to helping DOAJ weed out bad journals, rather than bask in total negativism, we would all be better off.
>>> 
>>> Jean-Claude Guédon
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20150514/e364b5c7/attachment.html