CLARITY: No this is not exactly correct. Jeffrey Beall was one of several people who were involved in the call-to-action sessions at the ISMTE meeting in August of this year. The structure of the Coalition proposal was primarily my contribution, in discussions with Hazel Newton of (now) Springer Nature, and Josh Dahl of Thomson Reuters. Jeffrey was included in all pertinent discussion immediately prior to the call-to-action session at the ISMTE meeting, and in many of the updates that followed.
The development of the CRPR initiative is totally in isolation of Jeffrey Beall's activities; while he is in public support of the initiative and is free to become a Member once the organization structure is finalized, there is no direct alignment inferred between the activities of the Coalition and that undertaken independently by Jeffrey Beall. Jeffrey is free to label an entity as predatory/questionable and/or otherwise as he chooses. The Coalition activities are designed to independently validate by committee, on the basis of an audit and through industry feedback, the ethical nature of business conduct and good publication practices of an entity; the Member disclosure upon which the membership is validated will be presented behind the Coalition membership mark (the badge). The initiative is meant to be a coalition of people, organizations, and companies (publisher, journal, organization, and service sector) from across industries, including both the publishing sector as well as the pharmaceutical sector. There may be differences of opinion between the Coalition determination of ethical conduct of a person or entity versus what Jeffrey Beall might contend; the determination of membership in the Coalition may draw upon Jeffrey Beall's findings (if available as "body of knowledge"), but the determination of membership in the Coalition would be discussed and voted on by Committee and not by any one person alone (much like a peer review process). The business model to support Coalition activities would be based upon a non-profit entity membership model. To become a Member, the person, organization, or company would need to disclose basic business information (via a self-report audit) in order for the Coalition to validate the existence and business practices of the entity. The existence and the ethical conduct of the entity over time would then be validated annually, or from time-to-time as events require. In essence, the CRPR initiative is designed as a broad-stroke white-list approach, and beyond the public display of the Coalition mark, the Coalition will have many other ongoing activities in coordinating efforts to uncover and report identified unethical or fraudulent practices to its membership (crowdsourced and shared intelligence, offering efficiencies of effort and resources; this has already been put into action through uncovering some of the anti-fraud activities taking place in China). I hope this helps. There is a vast amount of information offered in the narrative provided in the Scholarly Kitchen blog post (http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/09/16/validating-author-services-providers-qa-with-donald-samulack), as well as behind the video links listed on the SK blog post and the RPRcoalition.org website. For further information or interest in alignment, I invite anyone to contact me for offline discussions. Cheers, Don ----------------------------- Donald Samulack, PhD LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/samulack<http://www.linkedin.com/in/samulack> ORCid: 0000-0003-2888-1439 [iD icon]<http://orcid.org/>ORCID Ambassador E-mail: donald.samul...@editage.com<mailto:donald.samul...@editage.com> T: +1 (267) 332-0051 ext. 104 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 1:08 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Beall's list: crowdsource scholarly critique? hi Donald, Here is what I think I am seeing: you and others, including Jeffrey Beall, are proposing a for-pay service to validate author services such as publishing services. I understand that Beall has been central in developing this proposal. If Beall continues his involvement, essentially we have Beall labelling publishers as "predatory" based on his own judgements, and working with you on a for-profit venture to clear publishers from such labelling. Am I getting this right? If so, I might have some comments. Here is the text from the CRPR website on which I base this perspective: "This initiative was first formally presented by Donald Samulack, PhD (President, U.S. Operations, Cactus Communications and Editage ) during a panel session titled "Predatory Author Services: What Can be Done About it?" that included Hazel Newton (Head of Author Services, Nature Publishing Group), Josh Dahl (Head of Publishing & Associations, Thomson Reuters), and Jeffrey Beall... >From the website you link to below. just asking! Heather On 2015-10-05, at 10:41 AM, Donald Samulack <donald.samul...@cactusglobal.com<mailto:donald.samul...@cactusglobal.com>> wrote: It is for these reasons that I have put forward the concept of the Coalition for Responsible Publication Resources (CRPR; info can be found at: www.RPRcoalition.org<http://www.RPRcoalition.org>; http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/09/16/validating-author-services-providers-qa-with-donald-samulack), whereby such determinations would be made by a small Committee of people reviewing an audit of the journal/publisher. What the CRPR initiative would not accomplish (by design) is the cataloging of "the dark side." I invite all who follow GOAL to contribute to the discussion on CRPR and get involved, if you or your organization is interested. Cheers, Don -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:boun...@eprints.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:24 AM To: Global Open Access List Subject: [GOAL] Beall's list: crowdsource scholarly critique? Assuming that I am not alone in my concern about over-reliance on Beall's list, perhaps we can find a solution that targets this specific problem without more work than is really necessary? One thought for a remedy: could we find a way to crowdsource objective, dispassionate scholarly critique of this list and the assumptions people make about it? For example, the focus on OA publishers is a distraction from the fact that problematic practices can and do happen with all types of publishers. This is a serious limitation to Beall's list, which should be highlighted to the reader. As a peer reviewer or editor, I would insist that Beall do this before publishing his work, if this list were submitted to me for review. A similar type of issue is an assumption that Beall categorizes all publishers on the list as predatory. Even Beall's title should make it clear that the range is potential, probable of actual predatory publishers. This is a system of assumption of guilt that does fit with expectations of justice in Canada or the US. Anyone is a potential criminal or predatory if a publisher; it is not possible to prove otherwise. If we have evidence that Beall refuses to remove a publisher from the list when provided with proof that the publisher is legit, let's post the proof or at least provide a place where people can post. This might be helpful to scholars who have decided to ignore Beall in publishing choices for valid reasons. Scholarly critique, including critique of OA practices, is necessary to advance our knowledge. Beall has done some good work in exposing poor practices. His own work could benefit from the same critical lens. just a thought. Heather Morrison _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ________________________________ Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and directed solely for the use of the intended addressee or addressees and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone, fax, or return email and immediately delete this email and any files transmitted along with it. Unintended recipients are not authorized to disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy or take any action in reliance on information contained in this email and/or any files attached thereto, in any manner other than to notify the sender; any unauthorized use is subject to legal prosecution. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ________________________________ Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and directed solely for the use of the intended addressee or addressees and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone, fax, or return email and immediately delete this email and any files transmitted along with it. Unintended recipients are not authorized to disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy or take any action in reliance on information contained in this email and/or any files attached thereto, in any manner other than to notify the sender; any unauthorized use is subject to legal prosecution.
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
