Shared publicly  - 
Off to a bad start

The Open Access Journal Publishers Association (OAJPA) is a new organization trying to fill the niche already well-served by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA).

I'd say it's off to a bad start. Here's one of its first announcements: "OAJPA invite [sic] the new publisher [sic] for widening the organization of well repute [sic]." 

On a page it calls "Open Access Model", it reprints a verbatim copy of my Open Access Overview <>. Normally, I wouldn't mind, since I distribute the Overview under a CC-BY license. But OAJPA doesn't attribute the text to me, and adds an "all rights reserved" notice of its own at the bottom of the page.

Thanks to +Jeffrey Beall for the alert. His take makes sense: OAJPA "is a dishonest attempt to add a mark of legitimacy to a bunch of predatory journals."

OAJPA (suspicious)

OASPA (entirely legit)

#oa #openaccess
Kaveh Bazargan's profile photoMatthew Todd's profile photoPeter Suber's profile photoStevan Harnad's profile photo
On the plus side, if all the publishers that belong on Beall's list decide to join this organization, this could save a lot of people a lot of time :)
There a lot of these unscrupulous, opportunist, illiterate operators in India I am afraid and they give a bad name to the few who are trying to do business legitimately. Most are yellow-bellied too. I have called them every name under the sun on LinkedIn and elsewhere, but they seldom reply, and hide under the table. ;-)

You can rest assured this is a one man operation who set up a web site, and will have no effect on real publishing. :-)
Maybe what we need is a positive way to welcome and endorse the appropriate scholarly qualifications of new journals and publishers rather than trying to pursue the negative. That's an initiative I could see myself being happy devoting some time to, although I wouldn't have time to lead. Part of the DOAJ plans for crowdsourcing, or would OASPA like to look at some crowdsourcing perhaps? Do more filtering in so less filtering out.

What I am thinking is that when there are new journals in fields where I have a bit of knowledge about appropriate procedures and particularly people and institutions, to go through a checklist which should include actually talking to people, making sure the Editorial Board is who they say they are and know that they are listed on the publisher's website and so forth.

My perspective is that current OA publishers (especially some of the big and already profitable ones) really should contribute some time and energy towards this task, because the predatory types tarnish the reputation of OA publishing as a whole. I also think that traditional scholarly publishers (again especially big and wealthy ones) should step up to the plate, but can't say I've ever heard any of them agree with me on this. my two (or three) bits.
Toe-cringingly amateuristic, absolutely. But 'predatory'? They don't charge anyone. Their English is very poor, but we must be careful with culturalism. OAJPA may be an attempt, amateuristic, but nonetheless well-meant, to get OA journal publishing attempts from non-western countries together in some way. Instead of dismissing them out of hand, we might suggest to OASPA to consider stretching out more of a visible helping hand to OA publishers in developing countries.
You are too nice a guy for these idiots, Jan. I am sorry for my inflammatory remarks, but after 10 years or so of trying to be inclusive and giving these fools the benefit of the doubt, unfortunately they only understand one language, namely direct abuse in pubic!!! I am an Iranian myself, so perhaps I can feel more free in talking this way than the average westerner, who would immediately be accused of racism.

The fact that they have copied Peter's text and then "Reserved the Rights" shows they have no idea of, and have no regard for, openly sharing information!!
Though I naturally err on the side of kindness (I think...:-)), I could agree with you, Kaveh, if these guys were charging anything to anybody, like membership fees and the like. They don't seem to, insofar as I can see. So terms like 'predatory' and 'unscrupulous' are out of order. Not so for nigh 'illiterate', which they do seem to be, at least when it concerns English.
I agree with Jan that OASPA could try harder to have OA publishers in the South to join the organization.
Although the intentions of the DOAJ may not be as bad as some seem to think we really do not need duplicate efforts to organize open access publishers
Tom, I hope you didn't mean DOAJ but OAJPA?
I am afraid I smell "predatory" as they steal and misappropriate content, and I have a very bogus-y feeling about it all. This is not a good thing for legitimate OA publishers, be they for or not-for profit.
Jan erik. you are perfectly right. Already the confusion is starting but in my reaction I meant OAJPA. Sorry about this
I think we should be careful not to equate poor quality with the developing world. There are many high quality journals from the developing world listed in DOAJ, and there are plenty of people lacking ethics and/or grammar in the developed world.
Extraordinary that, on top of everything, the logo is plagiarised.
What in the world are we all worrying about? If OAJPA is bogus — and it may well be — it will just be weeded out in a Darwinian-like process. If it is an organisation of primitive publishers and journals that don't live up to (linguistic and scientific) standards that most of scholarship has got used to — which is more likely than 'bogus' — then they could safely be ignored. Or are we afraid they will take over or be a threat to OASPA? The reality is that the more scientists will get involved in publishing themselves and the more the idea takes hold that publishing doesn't need a thoroughly professional approach, the more amateuristic initiatives we will see. All manner of new amateuristic outfits are the result, especially in areas and countries where there isn't a long and deep tradition of professional science publishing. And the absence of a long and deep tradition of abiding by copyright and intellectual 'property' rules and mores is likely to result in somewhat more plagiarism and lack of attribution than in our superior system. (Tongue firmly in cheek).
+Jan Velterop THE BLIND WATCHMAKER: An "Association" for promoting predatory journals is obviously predatory. Yes, Darwin will root them out: Resolute naming and shaming by individuals who understand and promote Open Access is a core part of that Darwinian process. 
Anything bogus that calls itself OA is detrimental to the cause of OA, and should be weeded out. The problem is that all our writings on bogus OA makes that what hits the headlines, not the good OA inititatives. Scientists hear about the bogus, and become sceptical to OA. We must spend more time praising the good OA, so that also gets into headlines and attract scientists' attention.
The financial threat of bogus OA to the system is negligible, probably at about 1 percent of Elseviers operating profits, so that's not where the problem lies.
Add a comment...