Interesting twist on a plot good enough to draw the attention of a revived Monty Python...
Will the real Jeffrey Beall stand up? And, as a question to the whole community, if you had written such a paper, would you claim it? :-) Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 09 décembre 2013 à 21:14 +0000, Gerritsma, Wouter a écrit : > Dear all. > > > > Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall? > > He has been victim of a smear campaign before! > > > > I don’t see he has claimed this article on his > bloghttp://scholarlyoa.com/ or his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which > actually functions as his RSS feed). > > > > I really like to hear from the man himself on his own turf. > > > > Wouter > > > > > > > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On > Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > Sent: maandag 9 december 2013 16:04 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of > Beall's List > > > > > 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 -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal
<<attachment: face-smile.png>>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
