From: Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:43:04 -0500 Let us not forget the sub-basement, courtesy of Jeffrey Beall. See below. Bill http://metadata.posterous.com/83235355 On 12/5/11 7:20 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > > From: Jan Velterop<[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:05:58 +0000 > > In defence of mediocre journals, let me delight you with a quote from > José Ortega y Gasset's 'The Revolt of the Masses': "Experimental > science has progressed – thanks in great part to the work of men > astoundingly mediocre, and even less than mediocre." (The Ortega > hypothesis) > > To which Lewis Wolpert in his book 'The Unnatural Nature of Science' > (required reading, in my view – ISBN 0-571-16490-0): "Science > accommodates and even needs the intellectually commonplace." > > To which I would add my assumption that none of that mediocre and > commonplace, but necessary, science is published in 'prestige' > journals. It follows then that the mediocre and even less than > mediocre journals in which that material is presumably published, are > necessary too. > > I see science publications as an edifice, with turrets and curlicues > at the top (articles published in the likes of Nature and Science), > solid walls (consisting of articles in the better journals), and a > strong foundation of hard core (consisting of articles in mediocre and > less than mediocre journals). Without this foundation, the edifice > would collapse. > > Jan Velterop