(wrong string) “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers [Jeffrey Beall, Charleston Advisor]

From: C Oppenheim <C.Oppenheim_at_LBORO.AC.UK>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:27:13 +0100

an excellent article for which the author should be congratulated. There are a number of highly reputable OA publishers such as Hindawi and PLoS who must be very annoyed that these predatory publishers are potentially damaging their reputation; furthermore, such predatory publishing gives ammunition for commercial publishers to argue against OA (which they all too often assume is just Gold OA).

Charles
________________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad [amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM]
Sent: 22 April 2010 12:56
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: “Predatory” Open-Access Scholarly Publishers [Jeffrey Beall, Charleston Advisor]

[Re-posted from Andrew K. Ho, "Digital & Scholarly"]

Jeffrey Beall has written a review on nine "predatory" open access
scholarly publishers in the Charleston Advisor.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/charleston/chadv/2010/00000011/00000004/art00005


From the critical evaluation section of the review:
Message-ID: <dummy6747251010_at_invented.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

"These publishers are predatory because their mission is not to
promote, preserve, and make available scholarship; instead, their
mission is to exploit the author-pays, Open-Access model for their own
profit. They work by spamming scholarly e-mail lists, with calls for
papers and invitations to serve on nominal editorial boards. If you
subscribe to any professional e-mail lists, you likely have received
some of these solicitations. Also, these publishers typically provide
little or no peer-review. In fact, in most cases, their peer review
process is a façade. None of these publishers mentions digital
preservation. Indeed, any of these publishers could disappear at a
moment's notice, resulting in the loss of its content..."

[ See Also http://poynder.blogspot.com/2009/12/open-access-in-2009-good-bad-and-ugly.html
& http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/432-guid.html ]
Received on Thu Apr 22 2010 - 20:48:23 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:50:08 GMT