RE: Does Dramatic Growth of DOAJ Signal Success or Market Dysfunction?

[Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu>]

Not on an open list because some of these companies have 
threatened litigation in the past when their misdeeds have been 
exposed.

Sandy Thatcher


>Please name names.
>
>Regards,
>Nat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy
>Thatcher
>Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:25 PM
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: Re: Does Dramatic Growth of DOAJ Signal Success or
>Market Dysfunction?
>
>But we all know (without mentioning names) that there are some 
>companies out there taking advantage of the low barriers to 
>entry in OA journal publishing to operate scam operations that 
>are set up to take from unwary authors. I wonder how many of 
>these journals are counted in the DOAJ total? Does DOAJ attempt 
>to verify whether a journal really is a legitimate operation?
>
>Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>At 6:22 PM -0500 12/17/10, David Prosser wrote:
>[Hide Quoted Text]
>> >From Phil's post:
>>
>>'But does this type of growth really indicate economic success
>>in open access publishing?  Or does growth simply point to a
>>system gone awry, like the growth in unemployment or the
>>proliferation of spam?'
>>
>>There is just about no metric of success for OA that Phil can't
>>spin into bad news.  Of course he doesn't actually say that OA
>>journals are like spam - just leaves the words floating there.
>>
>>David
>>
>>On 17 Dec 2010, at 03:47, Philip Davis wrote:
>>
>>>   Two new studies that analyze the distribution of journals in the
>>>   DOAJ come to opposite conclusions. see:
>> >
> >> For Open Access Journals, Size Does Matter:
> >>
> >> http://goo.gl/fb/Qpkwd
> >>
> >> --Phil Davis