Scholarly Open Access |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Home
About
About Us
Beall's
Beall's List
Support
Contact |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
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 soundbites, but they use them at their peril, because of all the other nonsense in which they are nested!) There
were already moves afoot to establish a credible method for
identifying what Harnad calls “junkjournals”— something
that’s needed, since there have indeed been some profiteers who
seem to assume that authors don’t actually investigate the journals
they submit to—but I’d say the piece has done more than diminish
the credibility of Beall’s efforts. But that’s me. The
item linked to here is the start of a thread of other messages from
various people on the list. The thread involves quite a few people,
including Beall himself, who—in confirming that he wrote the
article and stands by it, since someone suggested it might have
been a spoof—says “Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding
just as my article predicts.” Ah, his lackeys! The set of
Harnadians pushing Gold OA is one of those special sets of lackeys
that fall in the same category as unicorns farting rainbows. It’s
quite a thread. Unfortunately, it’s a little difficult to find
Harnad’s promised actual critique of Beall’s rant article, but
this post offers some tidbits, at least. Source:
Crawford, W. (2014). Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall,
Cites & insights, 14(4), 1-22. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||