Scholarly Open Access |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Home
About
About Us
Beall's
Beall's List
Support
Contact |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Jeffrey Beall is (in)famous
for his often libelous blog posts against Open Access publishing on http://scholarlyoa.com.
He is also (in)famous for his extensive list of about 700 publishers.
Publishers on this list are called “potential, possible, or probable predatoryscholarly
open-access publishers”. According to his definition “predatory publishers … exploit the gold open-access model just for their own profit, pretending to be legitimate publishing operations but actually accepting any and all submissions just for the money.” (Beall 2013) As such by definition, “predatorypublishing” exists only among Open Access publishers. Subscription based publishers can never be “predatory” no matter how much they charge for subscription or for various page charges and no matter how small their service and reputation might be. Controversy Beall’s
blog includes this statement under each discussion: “All comments are
subject to moderation, including removal.” This in itself is certainly
acceptable because some moderation is necessary. Also SCIRP has published
its Blog
Policy. SCIRP had heard however, comments politely written and well
argued (but against Beall’s position) never made it online. It is hard
to prove comments get deleted by Beall. Comments could just “get
lost”. Probability of this scenario is low if it happens several
times in a row, as it did. Luckily, here is written evidence. Joel
Kinnamann reports:
“My comments went through initially. When I checked again today, I
noticed that all my comments are gone. I can only assume that Mr Beall
deleted them.” This is how it happened: “I posted a comment to ask if
Jeff has further evidence to back up the claim … As a response by Mr
Beall, this comment was removed along with my other comments.” Controversy
about Beall’s List starts already with the wording “predatory open
access publisher”. “As former Springer Publisher Jan Velterop put it
… ‘using such a term as ‘predatory’ is asking for trouble if
malicious intent can’t be proven. To question the journals’ prestige
is one thing, but an almost criminal accusation quite another.’ ”(Poynder
2013) Even Beall himself states: “In many cases, the predatory
publishers are not doing anything illegal.”(Elliot
2012) The term “predatory open access publisher” is used
predominantly in the USA. In Europe e.g. at OASPA or DOAJ use of the term
is carefully avoided. Lars Bjoernshauge from DOAJ derives based on a
dictionary definition: “A predatory publisher can then be described as a
publisher who intends to injure or exploit others for personal gain or
profit.” (Bjoernshauge
2014). The tem “predatory” was also challenged on Wikipedia
Talk. Beall
was asked “could
you please clarify the difference between potential, possible, or probable
predatory publishers, for instance a potential or possible would not have
same detrimental effects as if confirmed?” In the answer, Beall did not
clarify the difference between “potential” and “confirmed”. Beall
continues to remain vague about what is apparently wrong with publishers
on his list. Important for him seems to be to stigmatizes publishers.
In case he may get an innocent publisher on his list, he can easily back
off saying: “It was only a possibly predatory publisher”. Beall’s
list consists only of links to the publishers. Beall claims he has done
the evaluation of publishers in accordance with his criteria, but he
does not give any kind of evaluation from which it would be
possible to determine why a publisher is on his list. Beall’s
criteria (2nd edition) are negative criteria. They list the “bad
things” publishers could possibly do. Criteria fall into 2 major groups
Primary Criteria (“predatory” criteria) with 4 sub groups and
Secondary Criteria which are not further grouped. The number of criteria
are given below in brackets. There are 25 Primary Criteria and 23
Secondary Criteria. Beall does not specify how his criteria are
applied. We
can only assume the toughest measure is applied: To be found “guilty”
of already one of the Primary Criteria will get a publisher on Beall’s
list. To be found guilty of Secondary Criteria has no effect with respect
to getting on the list because Secondary Criteria are introduced with
“The following practices are considered to be reflective of poor journal
standards and, while they do not equal predatory criteria, potential
authors should give due consideration to these items”. In an e-mail
Beall was asked how his criteria are applied. Beall answered the e-mail
with respect to other questions, but did not respond to the question about
the application of his criteria. Beall’s
Criteria 1.
Primary Criteria (25) Editor
and Staff (7) 2.
Secondary Criteria(23) They
are reflecting ,,poor journal standards …, while they do not equal
predatory criteria“. „potential authors should give due consideration
to these items prior to manuscript submissions.“ Some
of the criteria are questionable. Questionable
Primary Criteria (“predatory” criteria) 1.2.3)
“Depends on author fees as the sole and only means of operation with no
alternative, long-term business plan for sustaining the journal through
augmented income sources.” Open questions: Is it necessary to
publish the “long-term business plan” online? How many years of
successful existence of a publisher will imply the business plan can
sustain the journal? Why is it not allowed if a journal is successful on
author fees as the only means? 1.3.3)
„The journal falsely … uses some made up measure (e.g. view factor),
feigning international standing.“ Debate: It is custom to show
number of views and downloads with online journal articles. If showing
these numbers helps „feigning international standing“ remains highly
subjective. 1.4.3)
„Operate in a Western country chiefly for the purpose of functioning as
a vanity press for scholars in a developing country.“ Open
questions: Corporations work globally. When does a company „operate in a
Western country“? When is it chiefly for what purpose? How is vanity
press defined? What is the distinction between “developing country”
and “Western country” about in the first place? Remark: Criterion
seems a little arrogant and written from a Western perspective. 1.4.5)
„Publish papers that are … obvious pseudo-science.“ Remark:
This seems to be the criterion Beall chiefly works with when no other
criteria are at hand. It is always possible to label a paper
„pseudo-science“. When is it „obvious“? For whom is it
„obvious“? Beall
(2013)indicates what this could mean for him: „Some of these ideas
include issues relating to sea-level rise…, anthropogenic global
warming.“ These are issues others would call mainstream science. We can
also take Beall’s own extensive publications in the LIBRARY
JOURNAL about topics ranging from astronomy, geography, medicine,
meteorology to space science. Maybe everything below that level of
scientific novelty and rigor is defined as pseudo-science. Questionable
Secondary Criteria 2.3)
“The publisher publishes journals that are excessively broad“. Remark: Beall
(2013): „Predatory publishers discovered the megajournal model by
copying ‚successes’ like PLOS ONE.” All megajournals are
automatically dubious for Beall. 2.5)
“The publisher requires transfer of copyright and retains copyright on
journal content. Or the publisher requires the copyright transfer upon
submission of manuscript.” Remark: This means that nearly all
subscription-based journal publishers engage in questionable practices. 2.8)
“The publisher engages in excessive use of spam email to solicit
manuscripts or editorial board memberships”. Open questions: When
is it “excessive”? When is it “spam”? E.g. in the USA, Unsolicited
Commercial E-mails (UCE) are legal as long as they adheres to 3 basic
types of compliance defined in the CAN-SPAM
Act. 2.9)
“The publishers’ officers use email addresses that end in .gmail.com,
yahoo.com some other free email supplier“ Remark: The connection
with journal quality is unclear. 2.20)
„The publisher or its journals are not listed in standard periodical
directories or are not widely cataloged in library databases.“ Remark:
„not widely“ needs to be specified more. It takes some time to get
cataloged. This has to be kept in mind when assessing startup journals 2.22)
“The publisher uses text on the publisher’s main page that describes
the open access movement and then foists the publisher as if the publisher
is active in fulfilling the movement’s values and goals.” Remark:
Everyone who is publishing quality OA can be seen as part of the
“movement”. The criterion is hence unclear. Its evaluation is
subjective. UPDATE
0n 2015-01-06: Beall’s
criteria (3rd edition) got published on 2015-01-01 including
small changes and additions. With respect to the questionable criteria
from above: 1.2.3 got deleted. 2.5 only applies now when APC have to be
paid. A new questionable criterion (next to last): “There is little or
no geographic diversity among the authors of articles in one or more of
the publisher’s journals” Remark: A national journal can well be
scientific. Question: Does this also apply to purely US journals? Remark:
In this criterion we see a general problematic logic used by Beall. His
verdict from one journal is transferred to the publisher and back to all
journals of the publisher. Why punish other journals at the publisher for
what happens with one journal? SCIRP
and its journals are set up such that they are not "guilty" of
any of Beall's criteria. Publishers
can appeal if
they think they should not be included on the list. The email will be
forwarded to a four-member advisory board. It is not transparent who is on
the advisory board. The only case reported so far was Hindawi getting
off the list. With this in mind, it does no make much sense to
appeal. We learn: Either Beall takes a publisher off the list by himself
or nothing will happen. Original
article initially published on http://blog.scirp.org/scirp-2/jeffrey-beall-i-am-an-academic-crime-fighter/ Posted
by Friends of Open Access
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||