From: Pippa Smart <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:37:39 +0000 Is this a joke article? Pippa ***** Pippa Smart Research Communication and Publishing Consultant PSP Consulting email: [log in to unmask] Web: www.pspconsulting.org Editor of the ALPSP-Alert, Reviews editor of Learned Publishing **** On 18 February 2013 20:52, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:15:45 +0100 > > Joe, > > You might want to read the abstract to this paper: > > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003455 > > Richard Poynder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 05:21:55 -0600 > > I have been sitting in a conference this weekend in which one of the > principal topics has been the future of peer review. So it was with > surprise and consternation that I happened to see the abstract to an > article in PLoS ONE: > > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056178 > > The article covers a study of how people read ebooks. And there, in > the very first sentence of the abstract, is a simple factual error. > > The abstract states that ebooks outsell print books in the U.S. and > UK. Not true. Ebooks outsell print at Amazon, but the book biz is > far bigger then Amazon, three to five times bigger, depending on who's > counting. > > Is this a problem of peer review? A problem of insufficient > copy-editing? A copy editor would have fact-checked that item, but > copy-editing is one of those things that is being cut back or even > eliminated to reduce costs for Gold OA services. The problem is > structural: Gold OA requires lower costs because the burden of paying > for the work rests with the producer instead of being spread across > all the readers. > > Gold OA, in other words, structurally requires lower editorial > standards. Much of the time we may not care about that, but then you > stumble on one simple error and begin to reflect on the entire > enterprise. > > Joe Esposito