From: Pippa Smart <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:37:39 +0000

Is this a joke article?

Pippa

*****
Pippa Smart
Research Communication and Publishing Consultant
PSP Consulting
email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.pspconsulting.org
Editor of the ALPSP-Alert, Reviews editor of Learned Publishing
****


On 18 February 2013 20:52, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:15:45 +0100
>
> Joe,
>
> You might want to read the abstract to this paper:
>
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003455
>
> Richard Poynder
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 05:21:55 -0600
>
> I have been sitting in a conference this weekend in which one of the
> principal topics has been the future of peer review.  So it was with
> surprise and consternation that I happened to see the abstract to an
> article in PLoS ONE:
>
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056178
>
> The article covers a study of how people read ebooks.  And there, in
> the very first sentence of the abstract, is a simple factual error.
>
> The abstract states that ebooks outsell print books in the U.S. and
> UK.  Not true.  Ebooks outsell print at Amazon, but the book biz is
> far bigger then Amazon, three to five times bigger, depending on who's
> counting.
>
> Is this a problem of peer review? A problem of insufficient
> copy-editing?  A copy editor would have fact-checked that item, but
> copy-editing is one of those things that is being cut back or even
> eliminated to reduce costs for Gold OA services.  The problem is
> structural:  Gold OA requires lower costs because the burden of paying
> for the work rests with the producer instead of being spread across
> all the readers.
>
> Gold OA, in other words, structurally requires lower editorial
> standards.  Much of the time we may not care about that, but then you
> stumble on one simple error and begin to reflect on the entire
> enterprise.
>
> Joe Esposito