Beall's List of Predatory Publishers or Beall's Predatory Business at the expenses of Publishers

We have received this email:
--

To whom it may concern

I was surprised when one of our editors told me that the name of Ashdin Publishing is found in the list of "Beall's List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers" (http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/) and I was surprised because of the following reasons:
  1. The author did not just mention the criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers, but he insisted on mentioning the full names and details of the publishers as well.
  2. Some of these criteria, for determining predatory open-access publishers, can be applied on a huge number of publishers (include some of the large and famous ones), but he did not mention any of them.
  3. Some of the publishers names are removed from this list without saying the reasons for this removal.
After I received the e-mail below, I am not any more surprised. Now, I am sure that the author, irrespective the good reasons he may has for preparing this list, wants to blackmail small publishers to pay him. 

I invite all of you to read what people say commenting on his article (http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385):

Dr Gillian Dooley (Special Collections Librarian at Flinders University):

Jeffrey Beall's list is not accurate to believe. There are a lot of personal biases of Jeffrey Beall. Hindawi still uses heavy spam emailing. Versita Open still uses heavy spam emailing. But these two publishers have been removed in Jeffrey Beall's list recently. There is no reason given by Jeffrey Beall why they were removed. Jeffrey Beall is naive in his analysis. I think some other reliable blog should be created to discuss more fruitfully these issues. His blog has become useless.

Mark Robinson (Acting Editor, Stanford Magazine):

It is a real shame that Jeffrey Beall using Nature.com's blog to promote his predatory work. Jeffrey Beall just simply confusing us to promote his academic terrorism. His list is fully questionable. His surveying method is not scientific. If he is a real scientist then he must do everything in standard way without any dispute. He wanted to be famous but he does not have the right to destroy any company name or brand without proper allegation. If we support Jeffrey Beall's work then we are also a part of his criminal activity. Please avoid Jeffrey Beall's fraudulent and criminal activity.

Now a days anyone can open a blog and start doing things like Jeffrey Beall which is harmful for science and open access journals. Nature should also be very alert from Jeffrey Beall who is now using Nature's reputation to broadcast his bribery and unethical business model.

Now, I invite all of you in order to take all precautions and not being misled by this blackmailer.

Ashry A. Aly
Director
Ashdin Publishing
http://www.ashdin.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:Open Access Publishing
Date:Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:39:18 +0000
From:Jeffrey Beall 
To:info@ashdin.com


I maintain list of predatory open access publishers in my blog
http://scholarlyoa.com

Your publisher name is also included in 2012 edition of my predatory open
access publishers list. My recent article in Nature journal can be read
below

http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385

I can consider re-evaluating your journals for 2013 edition of my list. It
takes a lot my time and resources. The fee for re-evaluation of your
publisher is USD 5000. If your publisher name is not in my list, it will
increase trustworthiness to your journals and it will draw more article
submissions. In case you like re-evaluation for your journals, you can
contact me.

Cordially
Jeffrey Beall



Read More!

Open Access — What Do Authors Really Want?

There’s no doubt that open access (OA) is becoming more and more popular with authors. A recent article by Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Bj√∂rk, published in BioMedCentral Medicine,found that in 2011 around 340,000 articles were published in just over 6,700 OA journals (defined as those included in the Directory of Open Access Journals) – approximately 17% of the total papers published in 2011. Of these, about half (166,700) were published as gold OA articles — journals requiring the payment of an article publication charge (APC).
So what do authors themselves think about OA? Does it affect where they choose to publish? What are their reasons for publishing – or not publishing – in an OA journal? The results of a recent Wiley survey provide some interesting answers.
In May 2012, we contacted more than 100,000 of our journal authors asking for feedback on their attitude to OA publishing (defined as where the author, their institution, or funding body pays a fee to ensure that the article is made free for all to read, download, and share online). Of the 10,600 who responded, about one-third have already published at least one OA article, while nearly 80% believe that OA is growing in their field (note, proportionately more researchers from the biological sciences responded than from any other field).
Read More!

Big changes to Open Access mandates

This year has seen huge changes made in the arguments for and against Open Access. The Wellcome Trust, one of the biggest funders of biomedical research in the UK, announced it would be enforcing its mandate for Gold Open Access (where research is freely available from the publisher; the model used by iMedPub more strictly. The Finch Report, commissioned by the British government's Science Minister recommended a move to Gold Open Access (OA), although there were some concerns over how this will be funded. Finally, the UK Research Councils introduced stricter conditions on making research available either through author-pays OA or by depositing in online repositories (known as Green OA).

This is all very UK-centric, but the same trends are emerging throughout the world, with petitions plaguing the White House and European funders mandating some form of Open Access by 2016. The UK's Department for International Development has announced it will fund OA for the research it funds internationally, with the International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, pointing out, 2the most groundbreaking research is of no use to anyone if it sits on a shelf gathering dust".

iMedPub's policy is to ensure that all publications in all journals comply with these Open Access mandates, through deposition in PubMed Central, free online access without restriction, and the freedom for anyone to use and reuse the published data, subject to correct attribution, thanks to Creative Commons licensing. Your Journal Development Editor can provide more information on how this applies to your journal and authors.
Read More!

Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact


Abstract

Background

In the past few years there has been an ongoing debate as to whether the proliferation of open access (OA) publishing would damage the peer review system and put the quality of scientific journal publishing at risk. Our aim was to inform this debate by comparing the scientific impact of OA journals with subscription journals, controlling for journal age, the country of the publisher, discipline and (for OA publishers) their business model.

Methods

The 2-year impact factors (the average number of citations to the articles in a journal) were used as a proxy for scientific impact. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was used to identify OA journals as well as their business model. Journal age and discipline were obtained from the Ulrich's periodicals directory. Comparisons were performed on the journal level as well as on the article level where the results were weighted by the number of articles published in a journal. A total of 610 OA journals were compared with 7,609 subscription journals using Web of Science citation data while an overlapping set of 1,327 OA journals were compared with 11,124 subscription journals using Scopus data.

Results

Overall, average citation rates, both unweighted and weighted for the number of articles per journal, were about 30% higher for subscription journals. However, after controlling for discipline (medicine and health versus other), age of the journal (three time periods) and the location of the publisher (four largest publishing countries versus other countries) the differences largely disappeared in most subcategories except for journals that had been launched prior to 1996. OA journals that fund publishing with article processing charges (APCs) are on average cited more than other OA journals. In medicine and health, OA journals founded in the last 10 years are receiving about as many citations as subscription journals launched during the same period.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that OA journals indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus are approaching the same scientific impact and quality as subscription journals, particularly in biomedicine and for journals funded by article processing charges.


Read More!