From: "Pikas, Christina K." <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 01:30:21 +0000

Seems like a lot of people are making hasty judgments based only on a
word, most definitely an unfortunate choice, in the abstract and not
on the science in the paper.

A marine biologist whom I respect believes the article should not have
been retracted:

http://www.southernfriedscience.com/this-paper-should-not-have-been-retracted-handofgod-highlights-the-worst-aspects-of-science-twitter/

"The authors responded to PLOS’s decision and revealed that, far from
an attempt to insert creationism into the scientific literature, their
references to a Creator were simply the result of translating a
Chinese idiom into English, and that, in a more literal sense, the
idiom meant “nature as guided by natural processes like selection”. In
that light, I’m in 100% agreement with Dr24Hours: The “Creator” paper,
Post-pub Peer Review, and Racism Among Scientists."

It definitely is not a good basis to judge an entire publishing
paradigm on. Further, PLoS One's JIF varies a lot from year to year
which says more about the JIF than it does about mega journals in my
opinion (for what that's worth!)

Christina


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:31:34 +0000

Does this situation reflect a problem with OA megajournals generally,
or a problem with PLOS One in particular? And actually, does it
reflect a serious problem with PLOS One, or does it represent an
anomalous poor decision on the part of PLOS One? How does PLOS One’s
batting average with regard to problems like this stack up to the
industry average?

In order to accept this as evidence of either the inferiority of
megajournals in general or of PLOS One itself, I would need much more
data than the anecdote below.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott
Library, University of Utah [log in to unmask]