Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

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

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:04:10 -0500


--047d7b5d8d45e95acf04ed1b4ef3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open
Access <http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514>. 
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 fun to review. I still think Jeff Beall
is doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA journals,
but I now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful conspiracy
theory! "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot." (Even on a quick skim it 
is
evident that Jeff's article is rife with half-truths, errors and downright
nonsense. Pity. It will diminish the credibility of his valid expos=E9s, bu=
t
maybe this is a good thing, if the judgment and motivation behind Beall's
list is as kooky as this article! But alas it will now also give the
genuine "predatory" junk-journals some specious arguments for 
discrediting
Jeff's work altogether. Of course it will also give the publishing lobby
some good sound-bites, but they use them at their peril, because of all the
other nonsense in which they are nested!)

Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set the
stage:

*JB: "ABSTRACT: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about
making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different.
The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the
freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also
actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict
individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders
sacrifice the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing
countries, pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access
journals.  The open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous
predatory publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of
research misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of
pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science."*

*JB: **"[F]rom their high-salaried comfortable positions=85OA advocates...
demand that for-profit, scholarly journal publishers not be involved in
scholarly publishing and devise ways (such as green open-access) to defeat
and eliminate them...*

*JB: **"OA advocates use specious arguments to lobby for mandates, 
focusing
only on the supposed economic benefits of open access and ignoring the
value additions provided by professional publishers. The arguments imply
that publishers are not really needed; all researchers need to do is upload
their work, an action that constitutes publishing, and that this act
results in a product that is somehow similar to the products that
professional publishers produce=85.  *

*JB:  **"The open-access movement isn't really about open access. Instead,
it is about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of the press
from those who prefer the subscription model of scholarly publishing. It is
an anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, one that uses young
researchers and researchers from developing countries as pawns to
artificially force the make-believe gold and green open-access models to
work. The movement relies on unnatural mandates that take free choice away
from individual researchers, mandates set and enforced by an onerous cadre
of Soros-funded European autocrats...*

*JB: **"The open-access movement is a failed social movement and a false
messiah, but its promoters refuse to admit this. The emergence of numerous
predatory publishers =96 a product of the open-access movement =96 has pois=
oned
scholarly communication, fostering research misconduct and the publishing
of pseudo-science, but OA advocates refuse to recognize the growing
problem. By instituting a policy of exchanging funds between researchers
and publishers, the movement has fostered corruption on a grand scale.
Instead of arguing for openaccess, we must determine and settle on the best
model for the distribution of scholarly research, and it's clear that
neither green nor gold open-access is that model...*


And then, my own personal favourites:

*JB: **"Open access advocates think they know better than everyone else 
and
want to impose their policies on others. Thus, the open access movement has
the serious side-effect of taking away other's freedom from them. We
observe this tendency in institutional mandates.  Harnad (2013) goes so far
as to propose [an]=85Orwellian system of mandates=85 documented [in a] tabl=
e of
mandate strength, with the most restrictive pegged at level 12, with the
designation "immediate deposit + performance evaluation (no waiver
option)". This Orwellian system of mandates is documented in Table 1...  *

*JB: **"A social movement that needs mandates to work is doomed to fail. A
social movement that uses mandates is abusive and tantamount to academic
slavery. Researchers need more freedom in their decisions not less. How can
we expect and demand academic freedom from our universities when we impose
oppressive mandates upon ourselves?..."*


Stay tuned!=85

*Stevan Harnad*

--047d7b5d8d45e95acf04ed1b4ef3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Beall, Jeffrey (2013) <a 
href=3D"http://triplec.at/in=
dex.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514">The Open-Access Movement is Not 
Reall=
y about Open Access</a>. TripleC Communication, Capitalism &amp; 
Critique J=
ournal. 11(2): 589-597 <a 
href=3D"http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/artic=
le/view/525/514">http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514</=
a></div>
<div><br></div><div>This wacky article is going to be 
fun to review. I stil=
l think Jeff Beall is doing something useful with his naming and shaming of=
 junk OA journals, but I now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanc=
iful conspiracy theory! &quot;OA is all an anti-capitlist plot.&quot; 
(Even=
 on a quick skim it is evident that Jeff&#39;s article is rife with 
half-tr=
uths, errors and downright nonsense. Pity. It will diminish the credibility=
 of his valid expos=E9s, but maybe this is a good thing, if the judgment an=
d motivation behind Beall&#39;s list is as kooky as this article! But alas 
=
it will now also give the genuine &quot;predatory&quot; junk-journals 
some =
specious arguments for discrediting Jeff&#39;s work altogether. Of course 
i=
t will also give the publishing lobby some good sound-bites, but they use t=
hem at their peril, because of all the other nonsense in which they are nes=
ted!)=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>Before I do a critique later 
today), I want to post som=
e tidbits to set the 
stage:</div><div><br></div><blockquote 
style=3D"margin=
:0px 0px 0px 
40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><i><b>JB: 
</b>&quot;<b>ABST=
RACT</b>: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about making 
s=
cholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. The OA m=
ovement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of t=
he press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also actively impo=
sing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict individual fre=
edom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice the academic=
 futures of young scholars and those from developing countries, pressuring =
them to publish in lower-quality open-access journals. =A0The open-access m=
ovement has fostered the creation of numerous predatory publishers and stan=
dalone journals, increasing the amount of research misconduct in scholarly =
publications and the amount of pseudo-science that is published as if it we=
re authentic science.&quot;</i></div>
<div><i><br></i></div><i><b>JB:=A0</b></i><i>&quot;[F]rom their high-salari=
ed comfortable positions=85OA advocates... demand that for-profit, scholarl=
y journal publishers not be involved in scholarly publishing and devise way=
s (such as green open-access) to defeat and eliminate 
them...</i><div>
<i><br></i></div><i><b>JB:=A0</b></i><i>&quot;OA advocates use specious arg=
uments to lobby for mandates, focusing only on the supposed economic benefi=
ts of open access and ignoring the value additions provided by professional=
 publishers. The arguments imply that publishers are not really needed; all=
 researchers need to do is upload their work, an action that constitutes pu=
blishing, and that this act results in a product that is somehow similar to=
 the products that professional publishers produce=85. =A0</i><div>
<i><br></i></div><i><b>JB: 
=A0</b></i><i>&quot;The open-access movement isn=
&#39;t really about open access. Instead, it is about collectivizing 
produc=
tion and denying the freedom of the press from those who prefer the subscri=
ption model of scholarly publishing. It is an anti-corporatist, oppressive =
and negative movement, one that uses young researchers and researchers from=
 developing countries as pawns to artificially force the make-believe gold =
and green open-access models to work. The movement relies on unnatural mand=
ates that take free choice away from individual researchers, mandates set a=
nd enforced by an onerous cadre of Soros-funded European 
autocrats...</i><d=
iv>
<i><br></i></div><i><b>JB: 
</b></i><i>&quot;The open-access movement is a f=
ailed social movement and a false messiah, but its promoters refuse to admi=
t this. The emergence of numerous predatory publishers =96 a product of the=
 open-access movement =96 has poisoned scholarly communication, fostering r=
esearch misconduct and the publishing of pseudo-science, but OA advocates r=
efuse to recognize the growing problem. By instituting a policy of exchangi=
ng funds between researchers and publishers, the movement has fostered corr=
uption on a grand scale. Instead of arguing for openaccess, we must determi=
ne and settle on the best model for the distribution of scholarly research,=
 and it&#39;s clear that neither green nor gold open-access is that 
model..=
.</i></blockquote>
<div 
style=3D"font-style:italic"><i><br></i></div>And then, my own personal=
=A0favourites:<div><i><br></i><blockquote 
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;=
border:none;padding:0px"><i><b>JB: 
</b></i><i>&quot;Open access advocates t=
hink they know better than everyone else and want to impose their policies =
on others. Thus, the open access movement has the serious side-effect of ta=
king away other&#39;s freedom from them. We observe this tendency in 
instit=
utional mandates. =A0Harnad (2013) goes so far as to propose [an]=85Orwelli=
an system of mandates=85 documented [in a] table of mandate strength, with =
the most restrictive pegged at level 12, with the designation 
&quot;immedia=
te deposit + performance evaluation (no waiver option)&quot;. This 
Orwellia=
n system of mandates is documented in Table 1... =A0</i><div>
<i><br></i></div><i><b>JB:=A0</b></i><i>&quot;A social movement that needs =
mandates to work is doomed to fail. A social movement that uses mandates is=
 abusive and tantamount to academic slavery. Researchers need more freedom =
in their decisions not less. How can we expect and demand academic freedom =
from our universities when we impose oppressive mandates upon ourselves?...=
&quot;</i></blockquote>
<div><br></div></div><div>Stay 
tuned!=85</div><div><br></div><div><b>Stevan=
 Harnad</b></div><div><br></div></div>

--047d7b5d8d45e95acf04ed1b4ef3--

        
--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .