Beall's List

Friday, July 05, 2013

Transcript

Some academic journals have embraced a “gold open access model” of publishing, wherein the scholars whose work appears in the journal pay for the privilege. Bob speaks with Jeffrey Beall, an academic librarian at the University of Colorado Denver who has assembled a list of "predatory journals" - journals that may be more interested in profit than academic contributions. 

Guests:

Jeffrey Beall

Hosted by:

Bob Garfield

Comments [5]

Jeanne A Pawitan from Indonesia

Can we still trust Mr Beall?
After reading these links, what's your opinion?
http://fakeconferences.blogspot.com/2013/11/prof-nicola-bellomo-sent-us-this-email.html
http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com/
http://bogus-conferences.blogspot.com/2012/12/have-you-hear-about-jeffrey-bealls-big.html

Jan. 17 2014 12:21 PM
Brooke Hamlin from San Rafael, California

I love your radio show. I especially like interviews with authors because then I know what books to buy. i would like to know the name of the woman Who was interviewed by a man a couple of days ago. She used to be a stockbroker and she wrote a fictional book about a woman who is a stockbroker.

Jul. 13 2013 10:35 PM

I love OTM, and I was very excited to hear the topic you were coverng this week. But Bob Garfield's unneccessary and dismissive comments about theological education both surprised and offended me. A legitimate, mainstream clergyperson will have received an MDiv comprising >100 credit hours in philosophy, theology, ethics and many other subjects.

Given the horrible inhumanity and even violence sparked (both in the US and abroad) by bad theology and worse spiritual leadership, I would say that you should, indeed, care very much whether your pastor and other religious leaders "got (their) degree from a diploma mill."

Jul. 07 2013 04:24 PM
Ramesh from NY

Your report did not quiz the credibility of so called respected journals. In fact your previous guest Ben Goldacre has a big list against respected journals. Following list questions the credibility of respected journals. I am keeping the list brief (read 'Bad Pharma' for full details).

a. Elsevier, a famous science journal published series of editions on behalf of Merck. Publication looked like Science data but contained 'reprints' of reviews of Merck products.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27383/title/Elsevier-published-6-fake-journals/

b Ghost articles: A study in 2011 found that top six journals like JAMA and Lancet published Ghost written articles. To be precise 12% of research articles, 6% of reviews and 5% of editorials had been gost-written. Lancet editor said this is ‘standard operating procedure’

c. Journals earn revenue by selling 'reprint' of previously published drug reviews. Pharma buys these 'reprint' to distribute to doctors. So 'reprint' revenue could influence original article. Except for Lancet other journals refused to disclose revenue from 'reprints'.
http://www.pharmalive.com/challenge-posed-journal-supplements

d. Names of the peer reviewers are kept confidential. We know academics depends on industry for grants so we are not sure whether these peer reviewers are not tainted by money.

c. Editors of Journals are not required to disclose their financial interest in the drug manufacturer but actual authors of reports are supposed to disclose their financial interest.

f. Journal 'Transplantation and Dialysis' rejected an article for marketing reasons
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC324478/

g. Lancet editor on influence of revenue on the article to be published.
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2005/05/exeditor_says_med_journals_dan.php

h. Pharma spends 0.5 billion for ads. published in academic journals

f. Author of the FSD (female sexual dysfunction) in JAMA had connection to Pfizer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_sexual_arousal_disorder

Above list and fake endorsement of 'fracking' by universities tells me that academics is no more clean.

Jul. 07 2013 01:20 AM
Tim McCormick from Palo Alto, CA

While Jeffrey Beall is right to cast a skeptical eye on abuses of scholarly journals, it should be noted that his views/approach are controversial in the scholarly publishing world. He is seen by many as contributing to a general anti-OA framing, by implying that predatory practices are unique or inherent to Open Access journals, when in fact there are many abusive practices practiced by journals of all types.

He also generated great skepticism recently by what seemed to be a strangely uninformed and unbalanced statement that the "serials crisis" (cost escalation in journals) was what gave birth to Open Access (clearly refutable, see Budapest Open Access Initiative declaration http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), and is now over. See http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/05/07/the-serials-crisis-is-over/

On the imbalance and negative framing issue, see this piece at Omega Alpha Open Access blog by Gary F. Daught, discussing Beall's view and responses by Michael Eisen, co-founder of Open Access flagship publisher Public Library of Science:
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/lacking-any-sense-of-proportion-michael-eisen-pushes-back-on-the-new-york-times-dark-side-of-open-access-article/

In all, Beall by himself is perhaps not the optimal choice for a segment on Open Access, as he is well-known and controversial for a particular viewpoint. Might we see a future, positive-frame piece on the variety of innovative new publishing models being explored in this field, by e.g. PeerJ, Knowledge Unlatched, DeepDyve, etc.?

thanks for covering this important issue, in any case,
regards,
Tim

---
Tim McCormick
@tmccormick tjm.org Palo Alto, CA

Jul. 06 2013 12:49 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.