[CoDeP] the Betham case

[Marco LiCalzi]

I have not received the email from Dr. Olowa Olatomide. 
Like her, I am not favourable to “clearing” Bentham because they have just one journal with self-declared nonempty intersection with economics.

I second the proposal by Richard Tol.

It might be useful to know who is coordinating this committee. (If there is no coordinator, perhaps we should nominate one.)
  
> On 20 Dec 2016, at 11:22, Richard Tol <R.Tol at sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> I note that:
> 
> I volunteered to join a committee on the measurement of journal quality, but appear to have been put on a committee on deceptive publishing.
> 
> The committee targeted a journal and publisher without due consideration or process, and approached its editorial board with a mildly menacing email only to discover we misfired and seem to have confused two publishers with similar names.
> 
> There is now a proposal to change the scope of the committee to determine what is and is not an economics journal.
> 
> 
> I suggest that (in chronological order):
> We develop terms of reference for this committee.
> 
> Reconsider the membership in the light of those terms of reference.
> 
> Develop criteria for journals and publishers.
> 
> Develop a method for testing journals and publishers against said criteria.
> 
> Apply said method to all journals and publishers at RePEc.
> 
> 
> I also suggest that we move this discussion away from email and onto a discussion forum where all have access to all members, documents, and discussions.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CoDeP-run [mailto:codep-run-bounces at lists.openlib.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Olowa Olatomide
> Sent: 20 December 2016 09:56
> To: Thomas <krichel at openlib.org>; Christopher <kitbaum at icloud.com>
> Cc: Committee <codep-run at lists.openlib.org>
> Subject: Re: [CoDeP] the Betham case
> 
> I object acceptance of Bentham journals, as it doesn't have the clear economic contents required to be enlisted on repec at all.  Even the tech transfer edition is about 99% tilted to tech/Science. How then would repec platform cast on it archival statuses it seeks without being trivialised. On Dec 19, 2016 21:29, Thomas Krichel <krichel at openlib.org> wrote:
>> 
>>   Christopher Baum writes 
>> 
>>> OK, the same person requested archives on 9 Dec for Bentham Science Publishers ( http://benthamscience.com/journals-by-title/A/1/)  and Bentham Open ( https://benthamopen.com/browse-by-title/A/1/). Do you advise that we should accept Bentham as a publisher? 
>>> 
>> 
>>   Yes, and tell them we only want that tech tranfer journal. We saw 
>>   nothing interesting for us in Bentham Open. 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>>   Cheers, 
>> 
>>   Thomas Krichel                  http://openlib.org/home/krichel 
>>                                               skype:thomaskrichel 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> CoDeP-run mailing list 
>> CoDeP-run at lists.openlib.org 
>> http://lists.openlib.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/codep-run 
> _______________________________________________
> CoDeP-run mailing list
> CoDeP-run at lists.openlib.org
> http://lists.openlib.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/codep-run
> _______________________________________________
> CoDeP-run mailing list
> CoDeP-run at lists.openlib.org
> http://lists.openlib.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/codep-run