This would seem to me the more naïve idea of all: " the hierarchy of the legitimate journals ". Legitimate according to who? El 5/4/2015 1:21, "Gingras, Yves" <gingras.y...@uqam.ca> escribió:
> Hello all > > In all this debate about what are obviously predatory journals that just > want to make fast money before disappearing, has anybody asked the basic > question: do we really need any new journal in any scientific field? There > are already plenty of legitimate journals around in most specialties of > science and no obvious need to create new ones. > > I receive regularly "invitations" to publish in those new journals and I > consider the very fact of receiving them as a sufficient proof that one > should not publish in those venues. I think that many who accept to publish > there are researchers that are not very much aware of the hierarchy of the > legitimate journals in their field and who are thus at the peripehery of > their field and pressured to publish irrespective of the legitimacy of the > journals chosen. The fact that papers have been tansformed from "unit of > knowledge" into "units of evaluation", contributes to this tendency to try > to publish anything anywhere. And predators are bright enough to play the > rhetorical card of "south" versus "north", "dominant" versus "dominated" to > convince these researchers to create their own local niche to publish their > "discoveries", as if the idea of universal knowledge was a naïveté of the > past... > > Yves Gingras > > > ------------------------------ > *De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de > Mauricio Tuffani [mauri...@tuffani.net] > *Date d'envoi :* 4 avril 2015 17:07 > *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Objet :* [GOAL] Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian > researchers > > Dear Mr. Bosman, > > Thank you for your attention and for taking the time in your answer. > Although I am not an expert in academic publishing, I know some of the > conflicts involving this activity. > > I have pointed out in predatory journals the affront to the same > principles of transparency and accountability highlighted for you. I know > that the big publishers also have journals that publish rubbish. I myself > have written about this, including exposing Elsevier. > > But I'm not an activist or a policy maker. My priority as a journalist is > to show what does not work. It is show, for example, that information > widely publicized, as the list of Mr. Beall, several reports and many other > sources were not even considered by some 2,000 experts from the 48 advisory > committees of the Brazilian federal agency Capes. And the result of all > this is waste pointed out by me and accepted by Qualis. > > I have not finished counting, but at least 240 Brazilian universities and > other institutions were already affected by publication in journals of poor > quality. > > Regardless of all this, let me show a quick personal assessment that may > interest for those who think strategically about the OA. In the current > political moment in Brazil, one of the worst things you can do is to > introduce, for example, the north-south opposition and most other related > topics. This approach certainly result in a ideological polarization that > will eliminate any possibility of rational discussion. > > It would have been very easy for me to interview some academics who hate > the government Dilma and also the president of Capes, which is in this > position since the beginning of Lula's administration in 2003. They > certainly would express devastating comments, but that's not what I want. > > As I said, if the growing garbage from predatory journals in Brazil > continues to be ignored, it will Become much larger. And it will be very > bad for the OA. > > > *Maurício Tuffani **http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani* > <http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani> > *mauri...@tuffani.net* <mauri...@tuffani.net> > > > > 2015-04-04 13:51 GMT-03:00 Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) <j.bos...@uu.nl>: > >> 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 >>>>>> listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
