Libraries are for Use

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

The OA discussion gets hot(ter)


Woah…things are really heating up in the scholarly communications field.  Jeffrey Beall’s Anti-OA diatribe  has made even pro-corporate-publisher Joseph Esposito blanch.  This posting in Academic Librarian (Wayne Bivens-Tatum from Princeton) does a good job summarizing this little tempest-in-a-teapot.  I especially liked Michael Eisen’s (a la’ PLoS) “thorough fisking” (nice word, Wayne).

However, having been taken in before in this world of hoaxes and Onion-like spoofs, I fear I have become jaded.  Like Mr. Bivens-Tatum, I wonder if this is but another hoax.  His rhetoric is over-the-top, full of red-baiting and taunts that sound more like a segment from Rush Limbaugh’s show rather than a scholarly article.  And this anti-OA was published in no less an OA journal.  So, like Wayne, I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop.  Or is this the real Beall (really, the pun was not intended until after I wrote it), and is the journal (Triple C: Communication, Capitalism & Critique) being brave in publishing an article so against its own foundations?  Or was that Beall’s point – to write something so anti-OA that the journal wouldn’t publish it?  Or am I going too far?

I noticed that Walt Crawford wrote in Wayne’s comments that he was abstaining from this fight (not OA itself, but rather this Beall thing).  Was I wrong to mention it?  Would it be better to ignore these trolls?  Maybe…

 

About these ads

One comment on “The OA discussion gets hot(ter)

  1. waltcrawford
    December 19, 2013

    I didn’t say I was abstaining from the fight–I said that I hadn’t blogged about that article before Wayne B-T did (but that his first sentence exactly matches my own sense). No, in fact, as a certain Loon has pointed out, OA supporters have not taken on Beall for too long. I’ve pushed at some of his stuff before now, and will certainly do so again, but more likely in Cites & Insights than in my blog, since the ejournal seems to have more impact and readership. No, you’re not wrong to mention it; Beall has far too much credibility among people who should know better to simply be ignored.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on December 18, 2013 by in Scholarly Communication.
The Scholarly Kitchen

What's Hot & What's Cooking in Scholarly Publishing - from the Society for Scholarly Publishing

Libraries are for Use

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Scholarly Communication | Scoop.it

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Library & Information Science Research | Scoop.it

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Library Collections | Scoop.it

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Lib(rary) Performance

About library statistics & assessment

ULS Universe

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Walt at Random

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

The Scholarly Kitchen

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Stephen's Lighthouse

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

ResourceShelf

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Politifact.com Truth-O-Meter rulings from National

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

No Shelf Required

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Musings about librarianship

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

LISNews:

Demonstrating the value of librarianship

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: