From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:30:55 +0000

Fred Jenkins comment is unfair. One of the reasons I and others have
been promoting OA for many years is to open up research publications
to greater scrutiny by making them available to a wider group of
researchers. OA journals deserve no more protection from scrutiny than
subscription journals. In fact the most serious damage caused by
unreliable science that I have known in my career was the effect upon
child deaths from measles resulting from the poor research on the MMR
vaccine published in a distinguished subscription journal a few years
ago. If the data from that flawed research had been published on open
access at the same time as the journal article the consequences for
many children could have been avoided. Rather than criticising either
the OA publishing models or the subscription models for such results
we should be looking at ways to improve the quality of peer review -
and make all research data and text fully open.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
________________________________________

From: Fred Jenkins <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:06:47 -0400

What is disappointing is that so many OA advocates seem more concerned
with protecting OA journals than with protecting readers from unreliable
science.

Fred W. Jenkins, Ph.D.
Professor and Associate Dean for Collections and Operations
University of Dayton Libraries
106A Roesch Library
300 College Park
Dayton, OH 45469-1360