<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:ArialMT;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="FR-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">I’ll let more notorious OA advocates (named or unnamed in the article) point out the many flaws and weaknesses in Beall’s
article (if they think it’s worth the effort).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">What strikes me though is that it looks much more like an opinion piece than a scholarly paper; the distinction is important,
as the appropriate reaction is quite different in the two cases.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">But I’d like to point out one specific statement : « OA advocates [...] ignor[e] the value additions provided by professional
publishers ».<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">This is quite strange, because almost all OA advocates value, and want to maintain at least one of these additions, the
most important in my opinion: peer reviewing. Maybe the OA advocates I know are not those whom Beall refers to, but the article doesn’t allow us to tell, except for a few, notably Harnad, curiously one of the most vocal defenders of peer-reviewing in the
OA movement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">There is also much irony in this statement, considering the fact that Beall published his article in an OA journal that
doesn’t seem to add much value: no formatting, no copy editing (“we ask authors to use our Layout template and take full responsibility for their own proofreading”
<a href="http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/about/editorialPolicies"><span style="color:black">http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/about/editorialPolicies</span></a>). As to the peer-reviewing of Triple-C, if I were to follow Beall, I would probably conclude
that it constitutes evidence that even non-predatory OA journals (Triple-C charges no author fees) are doing a bad job at it. But I won’t.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Marc Couture</span><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"ArialMT","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>