LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  March 2016

LIBLICENSE-L March 2016

Subject:

Re: What's wrong with OA megajournals

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:40:45 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (59 lines)

From: Alison Mudditt <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:05:17 -0800

I hate to point out the obvious, but I think you’re putting two and
two together here and getting at least five, Michael.  What you have
highlighted is a clear problem with the standard of at least some peer
review for PLoS One, which you then extrapolate to a problem with peer
review across megajournals in general and thus a question about the
sustainability of this form of OA publishing (if not all OA publishing
– I’m not quite clear). The conclusion you draw isn’t supported by all
megajournals at all. And peer review itself is of course an entirely
separate construct to that of the megajournal – there’s good and bad
peer review across all journals and plenty of examples of poor or lazy
“traditional” peer review.

That said, I completely agree that you’ve highlighted a very real
issue that requires our attention and response, but I suspect that the
market will sort itself out on this one. There are now many more OA
publishing options open to researchers, an increasing number of which
are run by scholarly associations who are very protective of their
quality brands. Thus if a journal such as PLoS One cannot maintain
appropriate standards, the community will simply move elsewhere.
Perhaps the declining number of PLoS One publications signals that
this is starting to happen.

Alison Mudditt
Director, University of California Press
510-883-8240
www.ucpress.edu



On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:46 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Michael Magoulias <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:31:52 +0000
>
> Readers of this list will be interested in the recent case of a Chicago biology professor who was asked by PLoS One to review his own paper.
>
> This professor also highlighted the following sentence in an abstract to a separate, published PLoS One article entitled “Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living.”http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0146193
>
> “The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.”
>
>
> Can I get an amen?
>
> This is simply the most recent example of what many researchers view as the standard m.o. of these megajournals. I was on a panel a few weeks ago with another biologist who had previously been a PLoS editor. He left on the grounds that the site was, and I quote, “a dumping ground for crappy articles.”
>
> If this is increasingly becoming the view of members of the academic community – and granted, the key word here is “if” – then there is a widening gap between researchers and those who believe that OA on an even more massive scale will be not only the solution to the problem of library budgets, but a boon to the future welfare of humanity.
>
> Looking at the timeline of this article, it is also worth noting that the period from acceptance to publication was 13 months, which is hardly speedier than what most STM publishers are doing. Clearly, whatever work was going into the article, it wasn’t peer review at its most rigorous. It wasn’t even manuscript editing.
>
> So if we add to these factors the recent dramatic increase in the APC, one has to ask whether this form of publishing really is any meaningful sense superior to the system it is meant to replace or “disrupt.” It’s also a question whether there can be long-term sustainability to a method of publication that places such a low premium on intellectual quality.
>
>
> Michael Magoulias
> University of Chicago Press
> Director, Journals

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1