From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 01:55:35 +0000
>I thought it was worth making my comments since all three of these
>cases -- and if you want to call them "anecdotal," it's worth keeping
>in mind that anecdotes can be just as empirically valid as anything
Not if you’re using three of them as a basis on which to draw broad
conclusions about a very large data set. PLOS One publishes tens of
thousands of articles every year. Three anecdotes about poor editorial
oversight, in this context, do not constitute a valid sample.
>So if you want to defend PLOS, the only recourse you can have is to
>some version of "not every single article it publishes is quite that
>awful" or, to quote the Osmund Brothers: "one bad apple don't spoil
>the whole bunch, girl.
I can’t speak for everyone else who has responded to you, Michael, but
I have no interest in either defending or attacking PLOS. I do think
it’s important to base criticisms on valid and rigorous data, though.
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
[log in to unmask]