[GOAL] Beall's list is removed

Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca
Wed Jan 18 20:16:23 GMT 2017


Thank you, once more, David. Presenting Beall almost as if he were the
target and victim of some obscure force from some unnamed publishing
interests is worthy of the best conspiracy theories found on some
strange radio channels (Limbaugh, for example). Stevan, who (generally
rightly) prides himself for his rationality should know better.
Jean-Claude Guédon
PS Those interested in laughing a little might want to read Beall's own
"The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access" to be found
in tripleC 11(2): 589-597, 2013
http://www.triple-c.at. This said, I should add that in the presently
demented climate of non-factual opinions, Beall appears in the company
of extremely well-known personalities. Perhaps laughter is not entirely
appropriate here. In the case of Beall, the best is to let this
miniscule storm die out. Beall's list is useless anyway. So, who cares?
Le mercredi 18 janvier 2017 à 19:46 +0000, David Prosser a écrit :
> Let us not forget that Beall was as well versed in supplying FUD as
> anybody else.  Remember that he wrote that open access (in all it’s
> forms) was a plot by European socialists and an existential threat to
> the scholarly process.
> 
> Let’s also not forget that for every false-positive Beall casually
> and unfairly stigmatised the authors who published in the journals he
> listed and the publishers who published them.  And when I say
> ‘causally’ I really mean it - Walt Crawford has shown that for almost
> 90% of journals included in the list Beall gave absolutely no reasons
> for why they were included (http://walt.lishost.org/2016/01/trust-me-
> the-other-problem-with-87-of-bealls-lists/)
> 
> Beall made himself judge, jury and executioner - with no requirement
> to justify his decisions and no obvious route for appeal.  And he
> puffed the issue of ‘predatory’ journals to a level far beyond its
> actual impact and importance.  Of course, that is his right to do so.
>  What I find sad is that for so long we gave him such attention.
> 
> David
> 
> (Writing in a purely personal capacity.)
> 
> 
> > On 18 Jan 2017, at 19:07, 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 .
> >  
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170118/97643b6f/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the GOAL mailing list