[GOAL] Beall's list is removed

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Although I don’t applaud to the sudden disappearance of Beall’s list, I certainly think his legacy is highly controversial. In short, relying on a one-person black list to make overall quality judgments (on publishers or journals) as well as specific decisions (on where to publish) was not appropriate. There are other ways, and other tools (DOAJ, to name one) better suited to these tasks. An eventual new “reliable service” (a “black” complement to Cabells’ white list?) could be part of them; we’ll see.

To Stevan: I wish to reassure you that I don’t see myself as “predatorily inclined” (not being sure though what that means) and that I’m not aware, much less part of any “FUD campaign to take [Beall] down” ;-)

Marc Couture

De : goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] De la part de Stevan Harnad
Envoyé : 18 janvier 2017 13:04
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] Beall's list is removed

No, this is not the whole -- nor the end — of the story.

My prediction is that the take-down of Beall’s list was indeed a result of FUD threats and actions (to Beall and his institution) by the deep pockets profiting from predation on authors’ publish-or-perish pressures.

My hope is that a reliable service like it will indeed re-appear, with the collaboration of Jeffrey Beall (who has been something of a loose cannon, but on balance provided a valuable service).

My suspicion is that those trying to make hay out of this take-down are themselves predatorily inclined and perhaps even part of the FUD campaign to take him and his institution down.

Where there’s big bucks to be made, as in predatory “journal” publishing,” principles and scruples wither (with peer review the first to go)...

Stevan Harnad

On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Jihane Salhab <jderg011 at uottawa.ca<mailto:jderg011 at uottawa.ca>> wrote:

Hi all,

FYI Beall’s list is removed. Check the following post: Mystery as controversial list of predatory publishers disappears<http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/mystery-controversial-list-predatory-publishers-disappears> .

A better option for authors to verify good publishers is thinkchecksubmit.org<http://thinkchecksubmit.org/>. In my opinion, it does a  better job than Beall's controversial list, because it relies on authors’ own judgements.

 “Think. Check. Submit. is a cross-industry initiative led by representatives from ALPSP, DOAJ, INASP,  ISSN, LIBER, OASPA, STM, UKSG, and individual publishers.”

Have a good day!

Jihane Salhab
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto: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/20170118/e0407521/attachment.html