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

Fri May 15 11:01:33 BST 2015

> On May 14, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Dana Roth <dzrlib at library.caltech.edu> wrote:
> 
> I fail to see how identifying a presumed defect (i.e., DOAJ's listing of a questionable journal) is defamatory.
> 
> Since DOAJ, in the past, was essentially clueless (or reluctant to act) about questionable journals, isn't Jeffery Beal doing the community a very important service by alerting us to what might be an unresolved problem?

Neither Jeffrey Beall nor DOAJ is yet performing an authoritative, reliable service. 
Both are better than nothing. Neither individually, nor both together, are enough, 
if we need to know with high probability whether a journal is legitimate or not.
 Even less so if we need to know the quality (if any) of a new journal (and most 
of these Gold OA journals are new).

This is partly because there is no way to know the quality of a new journal, whether 
OA or subscription. Only time will tell, and the potential authorship/readership will judge
it from its track record, once there is one. (This also applies to “mega-journals” like PLOS One, 
which is far too big and uneven to establish a uniform track record.)

But in today’s volume of output, and press to publish-or-perish, authors are not waiting, 
and the fashionability (not paired with a real comprehension) of OA has conferred a superficial 
legitimacy on quick publication in new OA “journals” on the pretext that it is being done for OA 
(when it is really for quick, sure publication).

And, in the background, Green OA is still there, to provide OA, while publishing in journals
with track records, their quality standards known, having won their level through the test of
time.

To my mind, the Gold OA journal conundrum — solved by neither DOAJ nor Beall — is yet
another symptom of a rather unthinking (and unnecessary) rush for what glitters (Fools Gold), 
instead of mandating and providing Green OA now and otherwise allowing nature to take its course, 
letting Fair Gold OA come once universal Green OA has made subscriptions unsustainable, 
forcing the established journals to downsize and convert to Fair Gold.

Meanwhile, for those who want OA now, they need only mandate and provide it, without having
to worry about the quality of new journals or the reliability of  Beall or DOAJ.

Ditto for peer-review reform (which is also not a valid pretext for publishing in journals without
track records for quality). New forms of peer review need time too, to demonstrate that they
work.

Stevan Harnad

> 
> Dana L. Roth
> Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> dzrlib at library.caltech.edu <mailto:dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm <http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm>
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org <mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> [goal-bounces at eprints.org <mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org>] on behalf of Jean-Claude Guédon [jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca <mailto:jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca>]
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:14 AM
> To: goal at eprints.org <mailto:goal at eprints.org>
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?
> 
> 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 
>> Texas 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
>>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org <mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal <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/20150515/17ea9f50/attachment-0001.html 