On 14 Jul 2020, at 9:24, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Here's a well researched
and documented article from a medical journal on the topic with expert
citations: https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/490 The
abstract
says it very well: "This commentary addresses the widespread use of
racist
language in discussions concerning predatory publishing. Examples
include
terminology such as blacklists, whitelists, and black sheep. The use
of
such terms does not merely reflect a racist culture, but also serves
to
legitimize and perpetuate it."
You might want to note that it was included in JMLA Vol 106, No 4 (2018)
in the **Commentary** section, along with pieces such as
"Using Slack to communicate with medical students"
"The relative citation ratio: what is it and why should medical
librarians care?"
"Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to
support the educational needs of researchers"
and
"How to earn a reputation as a great partner"
So yeah, quoting a magazine article on a scientific-sounding source is
great and all, but perhaps the citation is not as authoritative as you
think it is. If you actually go and read the paper, you will see that
the "evidence" the authors present is based on other people's similarly
sourced lists. There are no surveys, polls or other mechanisms to query
the actual sentiment of the allegedly affected population. I also have
to note that this piece was not peer reviewed, so there was no checks
for methodology or accuracy – why would there need to be one, it's
commentary after all.
The quote provides proof that the topic is controversial. Not surprising
judging by the length of the threads. I think it is also clear that
there are two well defined poles on the issue.
Dismissing those that oppose this change as "socially insensitive" or
"racists", as has been seen in previous messages, is a transparent
attempt to demonize the opposition. The same can be said of those
dismissing the group that wants to edit the terms. Both group have their
own motivations and I am pretty sure that each believe their motivations
to be good. I believe so about my own and I'm sure you are the same.
The vote of the PMC is being presented as an unsurmountable, immovable
design from the gods that need to be followed by all. I think the PMC
would be very wise to recognize that their prior vote lacked in
consideration to all the positions and should be reconsidered after an
appropriate opportunity to internalize the arguments that have been
presented. After all, it has been recognized by some defenders of the
term replacement, that this action is a mere gesture devoid of actual
ability to change the real underlying problem – which is not
constrained to the US, as some mentioned.
Best regards
-lem
