Sigh. Just read an OA-related piece that uses "we know for a fact" for something I'm pretty sure we "know" only if we accept Beall at face value--and, given that it's another piece that regards my work in the area as nonexistent, I'm not going to bother arguing with it. Feeling old and invisible; not a new feeling.
Not helped by the double whammy of Joe E. at Skitch writing a partly-useful piece on OA and societies--but one that (a) praises Beall and says we all should do so and (b) yammers on about OA article counts within subjects and, of course, doesn't recognize the existence of a major study of such counts. (Really? PLOS as the source of article counts in general?) Not a good Monday morning.
- walt crawford
The only saving grace: I am starting on the ms. of the Formally Published Therefore Actually Exists publication that will see at least a few hundred libraries get some fact-based info about the state of gold OA in 2011-2014. (Well, it's not peer-reviewed, so maybe it's still imaginary...)
- walt crawford
You are not invisible.
- Back to just Joe