Re: OASPA welcomes Phil Davis's exercise

[<bill@multi-science.co.uk>]

The 'prank' exercise makes plain what anyone with a grain of 
common sense realises, that plenty of OA journals will be full of 
junk science; at worst, a sweet racket between 'publishers' who 
will accept any paper so long as a cheque comes with it, and 
academics who want another publishing credit at any price, or are 
just gullible. Author pays was broadly driven out about 30 years 
ago, it was so obviously a bad and stupid idea. That people are 
seriously considering reintroducing it beggars belief.

Bill Hughes
Director Multi-Science Publishing

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:22 PM
Subject: RE: OASPA welcomes Phil Davis's exercise

>I quote:
>
> " there are potential conflicts of interest associated with all
> publishing models."
>
> Excuse me?  Would you care to document that?  There are of course
> *interests* associated with all publishing models, but "conflicts
> of interest"?  That is a remarkable statement.
>
> BTW, has it escaped everyone's attention that the Davis and
> Anderson exercise is FUNNY?  Isn't one of the lessons here that
> we laugh at ourselves and improve our efforts in the fires of
> humility?
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Caroline Sutton
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 3:42 PM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: OASPA welcomes Phil Davis's exercise
>
> On behalf of OASPA I wish to express that OASPA in no way wishes
> to undermine the excercise carried out by Phil Davis, and that
> the use of the word 'prank' was in no way meant to be derogatory
> (our use of the word was more inspired by Richard Feynman who was
> quite keen on pranks).
>
> To the contrary, we welcome his exercise as it demonstrates how
> important sound, ethical publishing practices are and the
> important role OASPA can play.
>
> Our intention in reacting to the debate surrounding Phil Davis's
> original piece is to assure the community that the reported
> actions of one open access publisher are not indicative of the
> community of OA publishers at large, the majority of which are
> scholars themselves.  We recognize that there are potential
> conflicts of interest associated with all publishing models and
> we recognize that peer review is a critical element of upholding
> trust among the research community.
>
> It is important for both scholars and publishers to be vigilant
> regarding any abuses of the publishing system. Indeed, one of the
> scholar publishers on our board, Gunther Eysenbach, was perhaps
> the first to comment on the behavior of some open access
> publishers long before this debate:  see e.g.
> http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-
> journals.html
>
> Our concerns regarding possible abuses was one of the important
> incentives behind establishing OASPA and the reason why we have
> developed a Code of Conduct.  On behalf of OASPA, I would also
> call upon Bentham to address the important questions raised in
> the debate surrounding this incident and in particular to clarify
> their peer review policies.
>
> Caroline Sutton, PhD