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:

Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:53:41 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (72 lines)

From: Michael Magoulias <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:49:19 +0000

I would question this view of numerical significance, Rick. First, if
you are going to say that three isn't enough, then someone will
inevitably come back with the question "well, what is enough, then?"
Whatever answer you give will be just as open to the charge of
arbitrariness. There is no getting around the fact that at any
numerical marker of significance (which is a judgement of value, and
therefore unavoidably subjective and arbitrary) will not persuade all
of the people all of the time.

Secondly, everything is context dependent. There are plenty of cases
where three is more than enough to take action. Three deaths from a
prescription drug already administered to hundreds of thousands of
patients can be enough to pull the drug from the market. One case of
strep throat or head lice has been known to cause parents to freak
out. One instance of plagiarism can destroy a career. In the context
of scholarly journals, where the place of publication can have a
massive impact on one's employment prospects, a single highly
publicized case of exceptionally poor quality control could very well
change submission behaviors significantly.

A journal is just as much as set of perceptions as  it is a collection
of articles. These perceptions are shared by communities within which
word travels fast. As you will remember from several Scholarly Kitchen
posts, PLOS's impact factor and submission numbers were already in
decline prior to this most recent incident. If you have been following
the commentary in the news media and the blogosphere as well, then you
will have noted that this particular article has elicited negative
assessments that extend beyond its immediate occasion from many more
than three scientists. This is not to deny, of course, that there have
also been defenders of PLOS. My original comments in any event were
framed by the suggestion -- not a categorical statement -- that there
were reasons to think that a trend in the perception of PLOS One on
the part of authors/scientists (not publishers or librarians) was
emerging. There are plenty of people who don't like that suggestion
for any number of reasons, but that in itself is not enough to
discount it. The weight of existing evidence, provisional though it
may be, still seems more in its favor than not.



-----Original Message-----
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
>else

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.

---
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

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