Mr. Beall thinks that "predatory" journals are OA journals. The problem is, thanks in part to his very list, we know that these publications are not scientific journals at all. Excluding them, therefore, is quite legitimate.
DOAJ journals, by contrast, try to cover all legitimate OA scholarly journals. That they do not cover the whole set of OA journals is not the greatest discovery on earth, but with over 10,000 titles, it does represent a remarkably fair sample as it must already cover well over half of all existing, legitimate, OA scholarly journals. Calling this cherry-picking is entirely off the target. "Predatory" journals, to repeat myself, are not legitimate scholarly journals: at the very least, Mr. Beall and I can agree on this. So let us not confuse potatoes with tomatoes, please... Incidentally, could Mr. Beall clarify what he means by "the entire cohort of OA journals". If he means DOAJ plus his list, see my first paragraph above. Calling Peter Suber - one of the most responsible individual I know - irresponsible is typical of Mr. Beall's uncontrolled forms of expression. The most recent example was his comparison of SciELO with a favela. The problem with Mr. Beall is quite simple: he is fundamentally against open access for obscure reasons, and he uses "predatory" journals as a proof that OA is evil, or something like this. If anyone has any doubt about Beall's feeling about OA, just read his "non-peer-reviewed" piece in an ... OA journal called TripleC : “The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access,” tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society.Vol. 11 No. 2 (2013), 589-97, available on-line athttp://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525 The same journal, in vol. 12, has an interesting study of Beall's form of discourse. If I were someone opposed or simply sceptical with regard to OA, I suspect I would feel a bit embarrassed by Mr. Beall's behaviour, a bit like some Republicans in the US are embarrassed by Mr. Trump. Thank whomever you want, transcendental or not, Mr. Beall is not a billionaire... -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le vendredi 14 août 2015 à 22:16 +0000, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit : > Right, but the point I was trying to make is that one should not make > general statements about all scholarly open-access journals based on > studies from a non-representational, limited, and strictly-defined > subset of OA journals, namely those in DOAJ. > > > > In other words, Suber's 2013 statement, "The overwhelming majority > (nearly 70%) of OA journals charge no APCs" is irresponsible and > misleading because the data the statement is based on was not gathered > from the entire cohort of OA journals — it was gathered from a curated > subset of them, a subset not intended to be a representative sample of > the universe of OA journals. But Suber kept making statements like > this, statements not supported by the data. > > > > I think if the 2011 SOAP study had also gathered and included data > from all the journals on my list that are not in DOAJ, the results > would have been much different, for the vast majority of the thousands > and thousands of journals published by publishers on my list charge > author fees. It's as if Suber's statements were made based on > cherry-picked data. > > > > Jeffrey Beall > > > > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On > Behalf Of Heather Morrison > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 3:40 PM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > > > > > > > According to DOAJ, 67.6% of journals listed (6,283 journals), while > 32.3% (2,999 journals) do not have article processing charges. This > information is historical - about a year old, from before the DOAJ > upgrade. > > > > > Based on our APC survey data (2014, 2015 in progress), I suspect the > number of APC-charging may be over -stated. The number of journals > with conditional charges appears to have been added to the total. > > > > > Also, based on our in-depth look at a large sample of these journals, > it appears that some of the "APCs" may actually be old-fashioned > print-based page charges for journals still publishing in print as > well as online. For example, some journals refer to costs for colour > printing. We haven't looked in-depth at the journals that were > identified as conditional charges, however one example of a type of > common conditional cost that is clearly not an APC is when an author > wishes to take advantage of an optional purchase of off-prints. > > > > > I believe there is some evidence that there are more articles > published in APC-charging journals than non-APC charging journals. > This does not impact the percentage of journals with and without APCs. > > > > > References > > > > > DOAJ historical data: > > > https://doajournals.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/historical-apc-data-from-before-the-april-upgrade/ > > > > > 2014 survey: > > > http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/3/1/1 > > > > > Partial 2015 results and analysis from: sustainingknowledgecommons.org > > > > > best, > > > > > Heather Morrison > > > > On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:02 PM, "Beall, Jeffrey" > <jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu> wrote: > > > Dr. Couture is correct that the passage I cited does not > itself cite the 2012 SOAP study, and I apologize for this > error. > > > > Here is what I really should have included: > > > > "The overwhelming majority (nearly 70%) of OA journals charge > no APCs. Moreover, when they do charge APCs, the fees are > usually paid by funders (59%) or by universities (24%). Only > 12% of the time are they paid by authors out of pocket. See > Table 4 of the comprehensive Study of Open Access Publishing > (SOAP). http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260"; > > > > This passage is from Dr. Peter Suber's blog here: > https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/K1UE3XDk9E9 > > I also got the year of the SOAP study wrong; it was 2011, not > 2012. Dr. Suber's blog post quoted above is from April 5, > 2013. > > > > Jeffrey Beall > > > > > > > From:goal-boun...@eprints.org > [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Couture Marc > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:56 PM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Well, I don’t know exactly what part of Jeffrey Beall’s post > Dana Roth agrees with, but I’m wondering about that part of > the same post: > > > > > > > "most peer-reviewed open access journals charge no fees at > all." [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012 study > that examined a non-representative subset of open-access > journals, a limited cohort, so conclusions that apply to all > OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn from it. > > > > > > > I found no link to or mention of a 2012 study in the cited > blog post (by Peter Suber). Before we go any further (if need > be), perhaps we should ask Mr Beall to tell us what study he > alludes to, so that we can judge by ourselves the validity of > conclusions such as the one in the excerpt quoted. > > > > Marc Couture > > > > > > > De :goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] > De la part de Dana Roth > Envoyé : 14 août 2015 13:40 > À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Objet : [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > > > > > > > I strongly agree with Jeffrey Beall ... journals, like 'ACS > Central Science', that provide OA without author charges need > to be recognized and applauded! > > > > > > Dana L. Roth > Millikan Library / 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 [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on > behalf of Stevan Harnad [amscifo...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:16 AM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > > > 1. Green OA means OA provided by the author (usually by > self-archiving the refereed, revised, accepted final draft in > an OA repository) > > > > > > 2. Gold OA means OA provided by the journal (often for a > publication fee) > > > > > > 3. Gratis OA means free online access. > > > > > > 4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights > > > > > > There is no "Platinum" OA. OA is about access, not about > funding mechanisms (of which there are three: subscription > fee, publication fee, or subsidy [the latter not to be > confused with "gratis"]) > > > > > > After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good > idea to stop fussing about what to call it, and focus instead > on providing it... > > > > > > Stevan Harnad, > > > Erstwhile Archivangelist > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Beall, Jeffrey > <jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu> wrote: > > For the record, some also use the term "platinum open access," > which refers to open-access publications for which the authors > are not charged (no charge to the author and no charge to the > reader). Using this term brings great clarity to discussions > of open-access journals and author fees. Using "gold" to refer > both to journals that charge authors (gold) and those that do > not charge authors (platinum) leads to confusion, ambiguity, > and misunderstanding. > > Some have abused the term "gold open access" to promote open > access, proclaiming, for example, that "most peer-reviewed > open access journals charge no fees at all." [1] This > misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that examined a > non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited > cohort, so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, > and should not, be drawn from it. > > Jeffrey Beall > > [1]. > > http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard > > -----Original Message----- > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org > [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM > To: goal@eprints.org > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > > Thanks Helene, > > Yes you are not the first to be confused which was which > because I put the terms in a different order. > > Gold open access is 'born' open access - because it is > published open in an open access journal (with or without a > cost), or in a hybrid journal where the remainder of the > journal remains under subscription (always incurs a cost). > There are many, many times that the terms 'gold open access' > has been taken to mean 'pay for open access'. Publishers of > course have done little to dissuade this impression. > > Green open access is 'secondary' open access because it is > published in a traditional manner (usually a susbcription > journal) and a copy of the work is placed in a repository - > institutional or subject. > > I hope that is a bit clearer. I agree it would not be easy to > change. But we all used to call things preprints and > postprints. That really made no sense because post-prints were > not yet printed. We do not use those terms any more, not in > the UK anyway. We use the terms Submitted Manuscript, Author's > Accepted Manuscript (AAM) and Version of Record (VoR). > > Regards, > > Danny > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment > was > > scrubbed... > > URL: > > > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150814/8a9 > > 4cdff/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:28:01 +0200 > > From: H?l?ne.Bosc <hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr> > > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > > To: "Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)" > > <goal@eprints.org> > > Message-ID: <8A81FFDC57274D9287431EE2740BA515@PCdeHelene> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > Yes there is an appetite for trying to rebuilt the past in > changing OA names! > > But even if the words Green and Gold can hurt some people it > has been > > adopted for years now by all institutions, for example in > European > > reports, since 2006. See the last one in June 2015 : > > > http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-informati > > on > > > > Of course, everybody can rename Green and Gold as well as > Open Access. But the difficulty will be to get the change > worldwide. > > > > Nicolas Pettiaux, for example proposed in a previous mail, > "Libre" instead of "Open Access"! > > > > Therefore mixing his idea with your option, "Born Open > Access" and > > "Secondary Open Access" could become "Born Libre" and > "Trying to get > > Libre"... ;-) > > > > BTW, I am not sure that I have well understood what means > Green and what means Gold in your proposition! > > > > We could play on this list to find best definition and vote > for it! But the aim of Open Access is not to find the best OA > word for 2015, then for 2016 and for 2020! The aim is to stay > clear for all stake holders, at the time of important > political decisions are taken. Policy makers seem to have > understood what is Green and what is Gold. They need only to > have more details on the true Gold and Green roads which > really conduct to OA. > > > > To be efficient today, we just need to repeat what is > precisely Green or Gold, and how to get it, in each > publication, conference, blog and forum, as Stevan Harnad and > Jean-Claude Gu?don do it for years now. > > > > H?l?ne Bosc > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Danny Kingsley > > To: goal@eprints.org > > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 6:56 PM > > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language > issues > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > There is some appetite it seems for looking at > definitions at the moment. In the last couple of weeks I have > tweeted about the following: > > > > a.. COAR has a 'Resource Type Vocabulary Draft' - > standard naming of items in repositories available for comment > - > > https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-interoperability/ig-controlled-vocabularies-for-repository-assets/deliverables/ > > b.. Open Research Glossary' so we can all be more > informed about vastly complex topic 'Open Scholarship' - > > http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/2015/07/14/the-open-research-glossary-round-2/ > > c.. 'We hope to build a common dictionary of terms > about open access to facilitate sharing of information' > http:// http://dictionary.casrai.org/Open_Access_APC_Report > > My issue is with the terms 'green' and 'gold' which are > entirely arbitrary. The main problem I have is that 'gold' > implies 'the best' and it implies 'expensive' and it is not > necessarily either. > > > > If we have an option I think we should refer to these two > routes to OA as 'Born Open Access' and 'Secondary Open > Access'. Considerably more understandable to the external > audience. > > > > Danny > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
