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:

Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:27:48 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (48 lines)

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been retracted: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]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

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