[GOAL] Beall's list is removed

[Richard James]

History teaches us that it's better one idiosyncratic and temperamental
person does not become the sole arbiter of any important issue.

Remember that Beall has argued that Open Access is a George Soros-funded
attempt to impose the aspirations of a "cliquish minority of European
Collectivists." I can get that kind of nonsense from Alex Jones.

Don't spend too much time feeling sorry for Jeffrey Beall. I doubt that he
is particularly interested in your sympathy anyway, and he's had a good run
riding the gravy train he created. I'm not sure that he's suffered for his
cause in any meaningful way.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Couture Marc <marc.couture at teluq.ca> wrote:

> 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> 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. 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
> 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/20170118/170c7409/attachment-0001.html