Re: [GOAL] DOAJ: handmaiden to despots? or, OA, let's talk

[Gingras, Yves]

Hello all

I rarely intervene here but take a chance to agree with Jean-Claude and even 
suggest to take care with the new current of moralisation of science that I 
analyse here (on its other aspects that now seem to touch open access and open 
science…):

GLOBAL
[https://www.universityworldnews.com/mobile/bookmark_icon44.png]
The moralisation of science is challenging its autonomy
Yves 
Gingras
  23 March 2019


https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190320145639758

best

Yves Gingras

--


De :  au nom de Guédon Jean-Claude 

Répondre à : "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Date : jeudi 15 août 2019 à 11:15
À : "goal@eprints.org" 
Objet : Re: [GOAL] DOAJ: handmaiden to despots? or, OA, let's talk

Many thanks for this, Lars. I believe your answer is excellent and full of good 
common sense. DOAJ is about OA scholarly publishing quality, not about putting 
pressure on potentially tyrannical governments. Given the way some governments 
are evolving these days, this might even lead to very weird consequences.

Politics does intersect open access, but not quite in the way Heather suggests.

Best,

Jean-Claude Guédon
On 2019-08-15 8:55 a.m., Lars Bjørnshauge wrote:
Hello Heather,

We agree that “Achieving the goals of the movement requires critical reflection 
and occasional changes in policy and procedure”. Over the years DOAJ has done 
this, listening to the changed and increasing demands from the community, for 
instance when in 2014 we implemented substantially stronger criteria for 
inclusion which were based on extensive feedback from the community: 
https://blog.doaj.org/2019/08/05/myth-busting-doaj-indexes-predatory-journals/
Earlier today we responded to your statement that we reject open access 
journals that would be "suitable venues for critics of the despotic 
government”. DOAJ wants to index good quality open access journals, but they 
must apply and meet the selection criteria in order to be included. We might 
also discuss the issue about “despotic governments”, but currently we would 
find it very hard to 1) create selection criteria for DOAJ defining what 
constitutes a journal sponsored by a “despotic government” and 2) agree on a 
list of such governments.
Best

Lars Bjørnshauge
Managing Director
DOAJ

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:08 AM Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:
As any movement grows and flourishes, decisions made will turn out to have 
unforeseen consequences. Achieving the goals of the movement requires critical 
reflection and occasional changes in policy and procedure.The purpose of this 
post is to point out that the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) appears 
to be inadvertently acting as a handmaiden to at least one despotic government, 
facilitating dissemination of works subject to censorship and rejecting open 
access journals that would be suitable venues for critics of the despotic 
government. There is no blame and no immediately obvious remedy, but solving a 
problem begins with acknowledging that a problem exists and inviting discussion 
of how to avoid and solve the problem. OA friends, please consider this such an 
invitation.

Sustaining the knowledge commons full post:
https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/08/14/doaj-handmaiden-to-despots-or-oa-we-need-to-talk/



best,



Dr. Heather Morrison

Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa

Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa

Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight 
Project

sustainingknowledgecommons.org

heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


--
Lars Bjørnshauge
Managing Director DOAJ (www.doaj.org)

mobile phone: +45 53 51 06 03
Skype-Id: lbj-lub0603 - Twitter: elbjoern0603
e.mail:  
elbjoern0...@gmail.com



___

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] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters

[gingras . yves]

Surlignage "pippa.sm...@gmail.com" :


> 
> As a comparator, I can get water free from rivers but I'm happy to pay
> someone to clean it up and pipe it to me.



It seems to be a better comparison is between choosing free water from tap and 
pay for bottled water.

:)

Yves Gingras 




-
Uqam Service IMP: http://www.er.uqam.ca/courrier
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers

[Gingras, Yves]

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
mauri...@tuffani.net



2015-04-04 13:51 GMT-03:00 Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) 
mailto: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 scien

[GOAL] RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers

[Gingras, Yves]

Helllo

Journals do evolve: they already did by going on-line and -- for many -- 
paperless. Many are continuous already trough "online first, etc. Most of the 
elements on your list can be incorporated in the future without problems. I 
will not go through it one by one  for it would be tedious, but becoming 
"other" is what evolution do...

Yves Gingras

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Bosman, 
J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nl]
Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 08:46
À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian 
researchers

Dear Yves and others,

Of course we could discuss what “a hierarchy of legitimate journals” is and 
whether one should base submission decisions on such hierarchies. But that 
would be another thread I think. What concerns me here is your question on the 
need for more journals. Overall I would agree that we do not need more 
journals. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the current journals suffice. 
We need *other* journals. For instance, in the field I serve (human geography) 
there is a dire need for journals with these characteristics:

- fully Open Access
- online only
- CC-BY license
- authors retain copyright
- maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model like that at 
PeerJ)
- APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries)
- really international profile of editors/board (far beyond 
US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR)
- no issues: continuous publishing
- in principle no size restrictions
- using ORCID and DOI of course
- peer review along PLOS One idea: only check for (methodological) soundness 
(and whether it is no obvious garbage or plagiarism), avoiding costly system of 
multiple cascading submissions/rejections
- post pub open non anonymous peer review, so the community decides what is the 
worth of published papers
- peer review reports themselves are citable and have DOIs
- making (small) updates to articles possible (i.e. creating an updated version)
- making it easy to link to additional material (data, video, code etc.) shared 
via external platforms like Zenodo or Figshare
- no IF advertising
- open for text mining
- providing a suite of article level metrics
- using e.g. LOCKSS or Portico for digital preservation
- indexing at least by Google Scholar and DOAJ, at a later stage also Scopus, 
Web of Science and others
- optionally a pre-print archive (but could rely on SSRN as well)

I would call them forward looking Open Access journals. They are just not 
present in the English language in my field. And that may be true for many 
other field.

Would you agree that we do not need *more* journals but that we do still need 
*other* journals?

Kind regards,
Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations in scholarly 
communication<http://innoscholcomm.silk.co/>

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Library<http://www.uu.nl/library>
email: j.bos...@uu.nl<mailto:j.bos...@uu.nl>
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman<http://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx>
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academia<http://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman> / Google 
Scholar<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJ&hl=en> / 
ISNI<http://www.isni.org/28810209> /
Mendeley<http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/> / 
MicrosoftAcademic<http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman>
 / ORCID<http://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727> / 
ResearcherID<http://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253D&Init=Yes&SrcApp=CR&returnCode=ROUTER.Success&SID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK>
 /
ResearchGate<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/> / 
Scopus<http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484> /  
Slideshare<http://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero> /  
VIAF<http://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/> /  
Worldcat<http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619>
blogging at: I&M 2.0<http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/> / 
Ref4UU<http://ref4uu.blogspot.com/>
---------
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Gingras, Yves
Sent: zondag 5 april 2015 1:48
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers

Hello all

In all this debat

[GOAL] RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers

[Gingras, Yves]

In any given research speciatly "who" is not an individual but the community. 
Just ask a bunch of physicists (random selection of 50 say) and ask them the 
difference between, say,  Physical Review and Il Nuovo Cimento or even Physics 
Letters and Physical Review Letters (all publish essentially in English despite 
their name). This hierarchy is most of the time implicit and change over time. 
I do not like talks of "naiveté" but since you launched it: it would seem the 
most naïve is the one who ignore the hierarchy of journals existing in any 
field...

That is my last take on this.

Best regards to all.

Yves Gingras

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Jacinto 
Dávila [jacinto.dav...@gmail.com]
Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 10:45
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian 
researchers


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" 
mailto: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<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] de la part de 
Mauricio Tuffani [mauri...@tuffani.net<mailto: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
mauri...@tuffan

[GOAL] RE : Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers

[Gingras, Yves]

Hello Jeroen

A last response"

Maybe because I tend to magine cultivated readers instaead of ignorabimus, I 
thought it was obvious to all that hierarchies differ, are based on images, 
influence by power relations, disputed, etc. No need here to rehearse 
postmodern rhetoric 101 to the readers of this list. You seem to conflate (I 
would not dare to say "naively"...) what "is" and what "should be". You can be 
against hierarchy and denounce them if you wish but what you write just confirm 
that they exist, just as social inequalities exist, though they obviously are 
based on power relations, as everything else.  I was just describing a reality 
that any sociologist worth his/her salt would find obvious.

That being said, you can always organize an "Activist Society Against 
Hierarchies" (ASAH) and propose to all researchers to publish in totally 
unknown  journals written in esperanto. You may convicne a few naive 
researchers after all. But this has nothing to do with what I was describing.

I am used to see  academics who  like to convince themselves to be the 
avant-garde by explaining to others obvious  things they  think to be alone in 
understanding. So, good for you if you can convince yourself that "in the long 
run academia will recognize that".  But as John Maynard Keynes, used to say, 
"in the long run, we are all dead".

Best regards


Yves Gingras


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Bosman, 
J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nl]
Date d'envoi : 6 avril 2015 12:08
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the 
Brazilian researchers

Dear Yves and others,

It is indeed naive not to reckon with hierarchies. But is is also wise to 
consider that:

- views of hierarchies may differ over various cultures and languages areas
- hierarchies are based on images of what is or should be important or leading
- images of hierarchies are influenced by power relations between (groups of) 
researchers (by country, age, role in academia etc.)
- published hierarchies are very much disputed

These points make that it is not by definition foolish to publish in a journal 
low in your or even 'the' hierarchy. What would be foolish however is to 
assess, judge, award, hire or fund someone based on the lid of the silo that 
person has published in. I'm convinced that in the long run academia will 
recognize that. You can already see it happening in e.g. Germany, UK and the 
Netherlands.

Best,
Jeroen



Op 6 apr. 2015 om 08:36 heeft "Gingras, Yves" 
mailto:gingras.y...@uqam.ca>> het volgende geschreven:

In any given research speciatly "who" is not an individual but the community. 
Just ask a bunch of physicists (random selection of 50 say) and ask them the 
difference between, say,  Physical Review and Il Nuovo Cimento or even Physics 
Letters and Physical Review Letters (all publish essentially in English despite 
their name). This hierarchy is most of the time implicit and change over time. 
I do not like talks of "naiveté" but since you launched it: it would seem the 
most naïve is the one who ignore the hierarchy of journals existing in any 
field...

That is my last take on this.

Best regards to all.

Yves Gingras

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] de la part de 
Jacinto Dávila [jacinto.dav...@gmail.com<mailto:jacinto.dav...@gmail.com>]
Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 10:45
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian 
researchers


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" 
mailto: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 knowled