 

Appeal Process to be Implemented for This Blog’s Lists

Appeal

Appeal

This blog will be adding an appeal process soon. If any publisher or independent journal feels that it should not be included on one of the two lists (publishers, independent journals), a process will be in place to handle appeals. The appeal process will involve a blind review by a three-member advisory board that will study the appeal and make a recommendation (keep, remove) to the website owner.

 If you are interested in serving on the appeal board, please send me an email and your CV. Please describe your experience and familiarity with scholarly open-access publishing. jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu  Thanks — I have received sufficient interest and am now in the process of forming the advisory board. 2013-03-01.

7 Responses to Appeal Process to be Implemented for This Blog’s Lists

  1. This is an excellent initiative. It may also make publishers more willing to explain what they are doing, rather than just protesting that they are innocent.

  2. Shawn says:

    Let me guess what the majority of the appeals are:

    1. We really do peer-review…Never mind we just published a 3 paragraph article full of spelling errors and 2 plagiarized paragraphs from the National Enquirer. (Then cite an example of established journals that had bad articles that slip through)

    2. The editorial board of famous and noted scholars…But they cannot be reached or verified.

    3. I work really hard as the editor of 127 journals in disciplines I have no qualifications editing…In my apartment.

    4. Our address is fake because we want privacy from people that question our business practices. Or, no, really, that mail box we rented really means we are from America.

    5. All those claims of asking for money after we accepted the articles are all from people that are jealous

    6. We spam everyone’s inbox because we are: Promoting scholars; we are a small journal; we don’t know any better. (We’ll stop…really…when the money runs out)

    7. Hey, what about that Elsevier fake journal scandal that is the excuse of every vanity publisher?

    8. You are anti-whatever ethnic group and a tool of the western academic press

  3. Christopher says:

    Jeffrey:

    This is a very positive step towards making your work sustainable and more widely accepted.

    By implementing a formalized review process, this list is moving from one man’s opinion to the judgement of many and that transformation makes the list much more valuable.

    At a personal level, your efforts to take the good idea of reviewing the torrent of new digital journals and make qualitative decisions is to be praised. While many of us have good ideas few are willing to make the commitment to bring those ideas to reality.

  4. Krishnakumar, R.V. says:

    Dr. Beall, this is a welcome initiative. However, this is something like appealing to a rogue to appear before the Sheriff. Rogues never turn up. After all, that is what we expext too. But, why is there only very little response to this topic?

  5. Christopher says:

    Krishnakumar, it won’t be the rogues who appeal. there have been and will continue to be new entrants to the publishing field who may at first seem questionable. the good ones prove themselves through steady quality publishing. If they are mislabeled there future is threatened. An appeals process will be used by legitimate publishers.

    Jeffrey – I suggest you publish the guidelines of how you make your decisions. the appeals group will need them in reaching a decision. (Forgive me if you have done so and it is buried in the blog.) this will strengthen the legitimacy if your list.

  6. I’m trying to understand how your list works. It doesn’t include Sage Open. Yet Sage Open lists no editor-in-chief; no academic affiliation for any editor (only for members of the “editorial advisory board”, which is often and honorific category); and has an unusually broad editorial remit. Does the venerable name Sage get them off the hook?

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,406 other followers

%d bloggers like this:
http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/02/27/appeal-process-to-be-implemented-for-this-blogs-lists/
scholarlyoa.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-15
66170
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:HEWB4BLCRUSQ4TRYYLRKOHJ6DIYUN3PA
<urn:uuid:08a9679b-9d0f-4cd5-8f52-374db1a78299>
2014-04-18T10:44:33Z
192.0.81.250
sha1:TBERPHOUZR6VLQZCGLBUEL3TYRSRP7YC
<urn:uuid:41f5c80f-cd37-460b-98ed-2f93a9c8ba28>
http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/02/27/appeal-process-to-be-implemented-for-this-blogs-lists/
length
response
<urn:uuid:8095f48d-322e-47d1-83ee-8d24885a2142>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-147-4-33.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-15
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for April 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf