WOW ! And we did praise that man...! Terrible...
> Le 9 déc. 2013 à 16:12, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open > Access. TripleC Communication, Capitalism & Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597 > http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514 > > 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!) > > Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set the > stage: > > JB: "ABSTRACT: 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." > > JB: "[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... > > JB: "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…. > > JB: "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... > > JB: "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... > > And then, my own personal favourites: > > JB: "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... > > JB: "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?..." > > Stay tuned!… > > Stevan Harnad > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
