Exactly, Mr. Roth.
*Maurício Tuffani**http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani* <http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani> *mauri...@tuffani.net* <mauri...@tuffani.net> 2015-04-04 15:13 GMT-03:00 Dana Roth <dzr...@library.caltech.edu>: > Dear Jeroen Bosman and others: > > > > > > The definition of Open Access given by Jeroen Bosman seems a little > restrictive, expecially given the new ACS Central Science, which requires > neither payment for reading the article nor from the author to publish the > article. > > > > WSEAS Transactions seems to be following the same business plan … with the > added feature of WSEAS being a ‘multi-conference’ organizer, which might > explain their unusual business plan. > > > > Additional details at: > http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/12/05/wseas-and-naun-two-publishers-and-conference-organizers-to-avoid/ > > > > > > Dana L. Roth > Caltech 1-32 > 1200 E. California Blvd. > > Pasadena, CA 91125 > 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 > dzr...@library.caltech.edu > http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) > *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 9:52 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian > researchers > > > > Dear Mr. Tuffani and others, > > > > I think you are doing good work in alerting the Brazilian science > community to the dangers of rogue publishers or would-be publishers going > for easy money. This is already complex, because there is no simple > criterion, there are grey zones between black and white. Some trustworthy > journals are just young and maybe amateurish but could develop in valuable > contributions to the publishing landscape. Others are indeed bordering on > criminal activity. > > > > Still I would like to take the opportunity to make this more complex. I > think you cannot improve the system by clinging to "prestige", "highly > ranked", "internationally renowned", "reputable" etc. There are many > journals and scientists that published rubbish, manipulated data and > whatever despite having these eponyms atached to them. What is needed is > transparency, open reviewing and assessments, sharing of experiences with > reviewing processes etc. What is not needed is ever more complex lists of > journals in 6 or more categories. These are non-sustainable nonsense. You > simply cannot judge a paper or scientists by the cover of journals. > > > > What also makes this more complex is thatbtjis takes place in a struggle > between north and global south, between the dominating mainstream English > language science culture and other cultures. I'm not saying there is no > need to develop and live by global values in science. But that is a complex > process that takes a generation and that doesn't simply boil down to 'just > publish in English in a paywalled journal included in Thomson Reuters' JCR > list. > > > > This is also a struggle between traditionalists, going for prestige, > rankings and competition and forward looking scientists, going for > collaboration, transparency and opennness. > > > > I think Brazil could make a giant leap by radically doing away with the > idea that they can only be valuable and succesful in science by playing the > traditional impact factor/reputation game and engage in the rat-race to > publish as much as they can. The giant leap I mention can be taken by > setting up a really transparent and forward looking scholarly communication > system. The technology and models are available, tried and tested. Just as > many countries in Africa moved into mobile communications without first > building a network of ground telephone lines, so Brazil can jump the phase > of trying to catch up in science with 20th century models. When you watch > what is really going on now it is broad platforms and journals (e.g. PLOS, > ScienceOpen, PeerJ, eLife), open and/or post publication peer review > (PeerJ, F1000, BMJ), ditching impact factors by universities and even > national associations of universities (see San Francisco Dora declaration), > wholesale flipping to Open Access, mandated datasharing by funders and > more. Not of of this is the mainstream yet, but it may very well be within > 5 years. We are in dire need of more broad initiatiaves along these lines, > especially in BRICS countires. > > > > Such a focus on the future might prove to bring Brazilian science more > than sticking to the old models. With a well thought out plan, broad > support, good incentivess and transparency Brazil could even lead on this > path. In retrospect this attack of your house by predatory bugs may have > been a blessing in disguise because it made you realise the bugs where not > the biggest problem. The bigger problem was the state your/our house was in. > > > > Kind regards, > > Jeroen Bosman > > Utrecht University library > > > > > Op 4 apr. 2015 om 17:03 heeft "Jacinto Dávila" <jacinto.dav...@gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven: > > I am sorry Mr. Tuffani, but your are just adopting Beall's list and, > therefore, copying his mistakes or, at least, his anti-OA stance. > > You suggest that Qualis comes "without rigor" and inmediately claims "The > expression “predatory journals” has been used for some years to designate > academic journals published by companies operating without scientific rigor > an important scientific communication initiative that came up with the > internet. This is the *Open Access* > <http://legacy.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/brief-port.htm> (OA), the > editorial model of publishing articles in open access, funded by the > academic institutions sponsoring their own journals or by charging fees > from the authors of the studies." > > Well, this 17 journals in your lists ARE NOT Open Access. They did not > even claim to be: > > > > *WSEAS* <http://www.wseas.org/>* (World Science and Engineering Academy > Society)**** > > - WSEAS Transactions on Acoustics and Music > <http://www.worldses.org/journals/acoustics/index.html> [ISSN: > 1109-9577 – descontinuado] > - WSEAS Transactions on Applied and Theoretical Mechanics > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4006> [ISSN: 1991-8747] > - WSEAS Transactions on Applied and Theoretical Mechanics > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4006> [ISSN: 2224-3429] > - WSEAS Transactions on Biology and Biomedicine > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4011> > - WSEAS Transactions on Circuits > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=2861> > - WSEAS Transactions on Circuits and Systems > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=2861> > - WSEAS Transactions on Communications > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4021> > - WSEAS Transactions on Computer Research > <http://www.worldses.org/journals/research/index.html> [ISSN: > 1991-8755 – descontinuado] > - WSEAS Transactions on Computers > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4026> > - WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4031> > - WSEAS Transactions on Fluid Mechanics > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4036> > - WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4046> > - WSEAS Transactions on Mathematics > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4051> > - WSEAS Transactions on Power Systems > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4057> > - WSEAS Transactions on Systems > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4057> > - WSEAS Transactions on Systems and Control > <http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4073> > > ------------------------------ > > ****O WASEAS não tem clareza sobre os valores de suas taxas de > processamento de artigos. O publisher tem feito muitas “operações casadas” > que envolvem taxas de inscrição em evento* > > Maybe what you want to say is what Mr. Beall seems to state: they are > "potentially" OA. But then, with this lack of rigor, everything is OA. > Perhaps, while you are criticising OA for this you should also, for the > sake of neutrality, explain how one of these 17 has this kind of "standard" > support: > > WSEAS Transactions on Systems and Control (appears in) > > - Cabell Publishing > - CiteSeerx > - Cobiss > - Compendex® > - EBSCO > - EBSCOhost | Academic Search Research and Development > - EBSCOhost | Applied Science and Technology Source > - EBSCOhost | Energy & Power Source > - EBSCOhost | TOC Premier™ > - Electronic Journals Library > - ELSEVIER® > - Engineering Index (EI) > - Engineering Village > - Google Scholar > - Inspec | The IET > - Microsoft Academic Search System > - SCIRUS > - SCOPUS® > - SWETS > - TIB|UB | German National Library of Science and Technology > - Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory > - WorldCat OCLC > > These are not OA indexes. Predatory behaviour is a wider issue. > > > > > > > > On 4 April 2015 at 06:57, Mauricio Tuffani <mauri...@tuffani.net> wrote: > > The translation is now available: > > > > Brazilian graduate system counts now 235 predatory journals > <http://mauriciotuffani.blogfolha.uol.com.br/brazilian-graduate-system-counts-now-235-predatory-journals/> > > > > > *Maurício Tuffani **http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani* > <http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani> > *mauri...@tuffani.net* <mauri...@tuffani.net> > > > > > > 2015-04-03 18:34 GMT-03:00 Mauricio Tuffani <mauri...@tuffani.net>: > > > > Mr. Davila, > > > > The list is published from March 9 — accessible through the same link in > my report indicated here by Mr. Beall — and has been updated today. Now are > at least 235 predatory journals in Qualis. > > > > > http://mauriciotuffani.blogfolha.uol.com.br/publishers-predatorios-e-seus-periodicos-no-qualis/ > > > > Auditing and supervision are precisely what is not allowed by all the > publishers in that list. In all my posts and articles I have emphasized the > need for such transparency. And I do not need to explain this by defining > OA. My focus is not to attack OA, but also is not make OA advocacy. > > > > Maurício Tuffani > > > > 2015-04-02 18:47 GMT-03:00 Jacinto Dávila <jacinto.dav...@gmail.com>: > > > > Publish that list Mr Tuffani. Openness is not only about allowing papers > to be read "in the Internet". But also about allowing auditing and > supervision of all sorts and at all levels. I understand you must summarize > the arguments for non-expert readers. But this is a gross > over-simplification of OA: > > " > > *Open Access* > > Predatory journals are academic journals published by companies operating, > without scientific rigor, an important scientific communication initiative > that came up with the internet. This is the *Open Access* > <http://legacy.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/brief-port.htm> (OA), the > editorial model of publishing articles in open access, based on the > charging of fees from authors or funding by scientific institutions. > > Both in the OA as in the traditional model maintained by annual > subscriptions or fees per downloaded article from the Internet, reputable > journals take months or even over a year to review and accept articles, or > reject them. > > " > > > > On 2 April 2015 at 16:41, Jean-Claude Guédon < > jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > > If some academics find it difficult publicly to denounce what obviously > are rogue journals, others obviously will. It is only a question of > perseverance. Furthermore, we need academics only to endorse journals that > they know to be legitimate. Those without the ability to have five open > sponsors will simply stand out in the list (that for colleagues who might > be scared of being sued). > > Besides, Mr. Tuffani, all you have to do is publish the list of the 200 > doubtful titles and ask who would be willing to put his/her good name > behind any of these journals. If it turns out that some are actually > legitimate, we shall soon know. They will have no difficulty in garnering > five sponsors who can be easily identified and queried as to their decision > to support a particular title. > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > -- > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > Professeur titulaire > > Littérature comparée > > Université de Montréal > > Le jeudi 02 avril 2015 à 17:28 -0300, Mauricio Tuffani a écrit : > > I will write about the suggestions of Mrs. Morrison and Mr. Guédon to > CAPES. But I sent them previously for this Brazilian federal agency, as I > reported in my post yesterday, whose translation is available in the page > of the link below. > > " > > The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers > > " > > > > http://mauriciotuffani.blogfolha.uol.com.br/the-qualis-and-the-silence-of-the-brazilian-researchers/ > > Best regards, > > *************************** > Maurício Tuffani > Journalist, science writer > São Paulo, SP, Brazil > Mobile: +55 11 99164-8443 > Phone: +55 11 2366-9949 > http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani > mauri...@tuffani.net > *************************** > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > -- > > Jacinto Dávila > http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > > Jacinto Dávila > http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
