I don't remember anybody noting here that it actually appears in a special Open Access section of the issue along with nine other contributions.
Debating Open Access (Comments, Non Peer-Reviewed) http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/issue/view/27 Lorcan Dempsey http://www.oclc.org/research http://orweblog.oclc.org http://www.twitter.com/LorcanD ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of Bosman, J.M. <j.bos...@uu.nl> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 6:01 PM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Beall on the open access movement: 3 reasonable points in a sea of nonsense After thoroughly reading Beall's paper I can find three reasonable points raised. - Speculation on the effect of the price mechanism introduced between author and publisher through Gold OA journals with APC's. This is something that deserves close attention. It should be interesting to discuss the SCOAP model (http://scoap3.org/) in this regard. - The supposed absence of the a community function in broad OA megajournals. Is that true? Is it to be regretted? Are there alternative communities that function separate from the journal proper? - The supposed lack of warnings issued by OA advocates against predatory journals. I at least partly second Beall here. I myself was taken by surprise by the amazing speed with which these bogus journals came to rise. And DOAJ waited far too long with more stringent criteria. All three issues merit further discussion but alas in Beall's paper these points are drowning in a sea of unproductive nonsense. BTW many researchers in my university effectively have a mandate: to publish in first quartile impact factor JCR journals ..... Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
