<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Beall, Jeffrey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu" target="_blank">Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Consolas;color:rgb(68,84,106)">I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely this statement, </span><span lang="EN-GB">"OA is all an anti-capitlist plot."<u></u><u></u></span><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Consolas;color:rgb(68,84,106)">This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote it in the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in the article, and I have never written such a statement.</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, you wrote the following (and more), for which that was a mercifully short synopsis (in scare quotes): "<i><span lang="EN-GB">The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with…."</span></i> </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Consolas;color:rgb(68,84,106)"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(68,84,106);font-family:Consolas;font-size:14pt">Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts.</span></p>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>[!]</div><div> </div><div> <b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Stevan Harnad</span></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><b>Sent:</b> maandag 9 december 2013 16:04<br><b>To:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br><b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Beall, Jeffrey (2013) <a href="http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514" target="_blank">The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access</a>. TripleC Communication, Capitalism & Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597 <a href="http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514" target="_blank">http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">This wacky article is going to be fun to review. I still think Jeff Beall is doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA journals, but I now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful conspiracy theory! "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot." (Even on a quick skim it is evident that Jeff's article is rife with half-truths, errors and downright nonsense. Pity. It will diminish the credibility of his valid exposés, but maybe this is a good thing, if the judgment and motivation behind Beall's list is as kooky as this article! But alas it will now also give the genuine "predatory" junk-journals some specious arguments for discrediting Jeff's work altogether. Of course it will also give the publishing lobby some good sound-bites, but they use them at their peril, because of all the other nonsense in which they are nested!) <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set the stage:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><blockquote style="margin:5pt 0in 5pt 30pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">JB: </span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-GB">"<b>ABSTRACT</b>: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing countries, pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access journals. The open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous predatory publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of research misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science."</span></i><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">JB: </span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-GB">"[F]rom their high-salaried comfortable positions…OA advocates... demand that for-profit, scholarly journal publishers not be involved in scholarly publishing and devise ways (such as green open-access) to defeat and eliminate them...</span></i><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">JB: </span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-GB">"OA advocates use specious arguments to lobby for mandates, focusing only on the supposed economic benefits of open access and ignoring the value additions provided by professional publishers. The arguments imply that publishers are not really needed; all researchers need to do is upload their work, an action that constitutes publishing, and that this act results in a product that is somehow similar to the products that professional publishers produce…. </span></i><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">JB: </span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-GB">"The open-access movement isn't really about open access. Instead, it is about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of the press from those who prefer the subscription model of scholarly publishing. It is an anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, one that uses young researchers and researchers from developing countries as pawns to artificially force the make-believe gold and green open-access models to work. The movement relies on unnatural mandates that take free choice away from individual researchers, mandates set and enforced by an onerous cadre of Soros-funded European autocrats...</span></i><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">JB: </span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-GB">"The open-access movement is a failed social movement and a false messiah, but its promoters refuse to admit this. The emergence of numerous predatory publishers – a product of the open-access movement – has poisoned scholarly communication, fostering research misconduct and the publishing of pseudo-science, but OA advocates refuse to recognize the growing problem. By instituting a policy of exchanging funds between researchers and publishers, the movement has fostered corruption on a grand scale. Instead of arguing for openaccess, we must determine and settle on the best model for the distribution of scholarly research, and it's clear that neither green nor gold open-access is that model...</span></i><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">And then, my own personal favourites:<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><blockquote style="margin:5pt 0in 5pt 30pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">JB: </span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-GB">"Open access advocates think they know better than everyone else and want to impose their policies on others. Thus, the open access movement has the serious side-effect of taking away other's freedom from them. We observe this tendency in institutional mandates. Harnad (2013) goes so far as to propose [an]…Orwellian system of mandates… documented [in a] table of mandate strength, with the most restrictive pegged at level 12, with the designation "immediate deposit + performance evaluation (no waiver option)". This Orwellian system of mandates is documented in Table 1... </span></i><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB">JB: </span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-GB">"A social movement that needs mandates to work is doomed to fail. A social movement that uses mandates is abusive and tantamount to academic slavery. Researchers need more freedom in their decisions not less. How can we expect and demand academic freedom from our universities when we impose oppressive mandates upon ourselves?..."</span></i><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Stay tuned!…<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Stevan Harnad</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>