[GOAL] Re: Beall's list: crowdsource scholarly critique?

[Donald Samulack]

It is for these reasons that I have put forward the concept of the Coalition for Responsible Publication Resources (CRPR; info can be found at: www.RPRcoalition.org; http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/09/16/validating-author-services-providers-qa-with-donald-samulack), whereby such determinations would be made by a small Committee of people reviewing an audit of the journal/publisher. What the CRPR initiative would not accomplish (by design) is the cataloging of "the dark side."

I invite all who follow GOAL to contribute to the discussion on CRPR and get involved, if you or your organization is interested.

Cheers,

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:24 AM
To: Global Open Access List
Subject: [GOAL] Beall's list: crowdsource scholarly critique?

Assuming  that I am not alone in my concern about over-reliance on Beall's list, perhaps we can find a solution that targets this specific problem without more work than is really necessary? One thought for a remedy:  could we find a way to crowdsource objective, dispassionate scholarly critique of this list and the assumptions people make about it?

For example, the focus on OA publishers is a distraction from the fact that problematic practices can and do happen with all types of publishers. This is a serious limitation to Beall's list, which should be highlighted to the reader. As a peer reviewer or editor, I would insist that Beall do this before publishing his work, if this list were submitted to me for review.

A similar type of issue is an assumption that Beall categorizes all publishers on the list as predatory. Even Beall's title should make it clear that the range is potential, probable of actual predatory publishers. This is a system of assumption of guilt that does fit with expectations of justice in Canada or the US. Anyone is a potential criminal or predatory if a publisher; it is not possible to prove otherwise.

If we have evidence that Beall refuses to remove a publisher from the list when provided with proof that the publisher is legit, let's post the proof or at least provide a place where people can post. This might be helpful to scholars who have decided to ignore Beall in publishing choices for valid reasons.

Scholarly critique, including critique of OA practices, is necessary to advance our knowledge. Beall has done some good work in exposing poor practices. His own work could benefit from the same critical lens.

just a thought.

Heather Morrison





_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

________________________________
Disclaimer:
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and directed solely for the use of the intended addressee or addressees and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone, fax, or return email and immediately delete this email and any files transmitted along with it. Unintended recipients are not authorized to disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy or take any action in reliance on information contained in this email and/or any files attached thereto, in any manner other than to notify the sender; any unauthorized use is subject to legal prosecution.