[GOAL] Re: Beall on the open access movement: 3 reasonable points in a sea of nonsense

I don't remember anybody noting here that it actually appears in a special Open Access section of the issue along with nine other contributions. Debating Open Access (Comments, Non Peer-Reviewed) http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/issue/view/27 Lorcan Dempsey http://www.oclc.org/research ht

[GOAL] Beall on the open access movement: 3 reasonable points in a sea of nonsense

After thoroughly reading Beall's paper I can find three reasonable points raised. - Speculation on the effect of the price mechanism introduced between author and publisher through Gold OA journals with APC's. This is something that deserves close attention. It should be interesting to di

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu

On 9 December 2013 00:20, Heather Morrison wrote: > Alicia, > > According to your statement below, with CC-BY the only restriction placed > by Elsevier is for attribution. However, the Elsevier open access license > policy clearly states that Elsevier demands an exclusive license to publish > with

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

I'll let more notorious OA advocates (named or unnamed in the article) point out the many flaws and weaknesses in Beall's article (if they think it's worth the effort). What strikes me though is that it looks much more like an opinion piece than a scholarly paper; the distinction is important,

[GOAL] Re: OA journal publishing by APC: dominated by the commercial sector

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > All of the 14 largest publishers listed in DOAJ that have article > processing charges (by number of journals published) are commercial in > nature, to the best of my knowledge (if any are not-for-profit, co

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Dear Jeffrey, Thanks for clarifying this one. I am certainly not a lackey of Harnad. I am under the impression that the whole epistle is a rather large rant, I really wonder who has done the peer review of this work. But ironically you prove your point by getting this published in an OA journ

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

There is another puzzling element in all of this: Triple C, when you look at it until around 2012 (I have not done a thorough verification), through individual articles, refers to "Cognition, Communication, Cooperation". Yet, these articles appear through a new template that reads: Communication,

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

One should never underestimate Jeffrey Beall's sense of humour... :-) And we all admire his capacity for predictions and categorizations. This said, I would love to hear about those who did the peer review for Beall's article. Are there any? If not, perhaps the journal Triple-C could qualify to en

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Beall, Jeffrey wrote: > I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely > this statement, "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot." > > This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote > it in the article. The fact is tha

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Indeed, Jeffrey is not calling OA an "anti-capitlist plot" [sic] — not even an "anti-capitalist" one. But he does use the term "anti-corporatist movement". What surprises me is that he nevertheless chose to publish his article in an open access journal, albeit under a CC-BY-NC-ND licence. (That

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody. David On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey wrote: > Wouter, > > Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility for > it. > > I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely this > statement, "O

[GOAL] OA journal publishing by APC: dominated by the commercial sector

In his recent article in Triple C, Jeffrey Beall claims among other things that "the OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement" (from http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514). In response, César Villamizar and I pulled some data from an open access article processing charge

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Keep on guys! it's far better than any television series ever put on the air (although quite cryptic for anyone appart the happy few) De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Beall, Jeffrey Envoyé : lundi 9 décembre 2013 22:46 À : Global Open Access List (Suc

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Wouter, Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility for it. I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely this statement, "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot." This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote it in

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Interesting twist on a plot good enough to draw the attention of a revived Monty Python... Will the real Jeffrey Beall stand up? And, as a question to the whole community, if you had written such a paper, would you claim it? :-) Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 09 décembre 2013 à 21:14 +, Gerri

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Dear all. Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall? He has been victim of a smear campaign before! I don't see he has claimed this article on his blog http://scholarlyoa.com/ or his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which actually functions as his RSS feed). I really like to hear from t

[GOAL] Re: Scientometric aspects of government OA mandates

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:19 PM, David Wojick wrote: > > The Scholarly Kitchen has an interesting article on how to define "federal > funding" under the emerging US OA mandate. See > http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/09/what-does-federally-funded-actually-mean/ > > The scientometric issue

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Thanks for alerting us to this article, Stevan. Wacky indeed! Some preliminary observations: Commercial scholarly publishing is arguably not a free market; it is a monopoly. The industry has, for example, been the subject of investigation by the UK Office of Fair Trading. The current tenure s

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

WOW ! And we did praise that man...! Terrible... > Le 9 déc. 2013 à 16:12, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > > Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open > Access. TripleC Communication, Capitalism & Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597 > http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/ar

[GOAL] Re: I would like to receive some training about open access to become an expert and help the scholars in Turkey

Dear Mr. Barbaros, You could have a look at the now terminated MedOANet project http://www.medoanet.eu/ with an important involvement from Turkey. I am sure that beyond the global network, from there you can liaise in Turkish with very competent people. All the best Serge Bauin Sorbonne Paris

[GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access . TripleC Communication, Capitalism & Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597 http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514 This wacky article is going to be

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu

Hi all, I agree - it sounds like there could be a problem with the metadata feed we supply to Rightslink or else how permissions for open access articles display in their systems - we will investigate. With kind wishes, Alicia From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org]