From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:30:55 +0000 Fred Jenkins comment is unfair. One of the reasons I and others have been promoting OA for many years is to open up research publications to greater scrutiny by making them available to a wider group of researchers. OA journals deserve no more protection from scrutiny than subscription journals. In fact the most serious damage caused by unreliable science that I have known in my career was the effect upon child deaths from measles resulting from the poor research on the MMR vaccine published in a distinguished subscription journal a few years ago. If the data from that flawed research had been published on open access at the same time as the journal article the consequences for many children could have been avoided. Rather than criticising either the OA publishing models or the subscription models for such results we should be looking at ways to improve the quality of peer review - and make all research data and text fully open. Fred Friend Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL ________________________________________ From: Fred Jenkins <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:06:47 -0400 What is disappointing is that so many OA advocates seem more concerned with protecting OA journals than with protecting readers from unreliable science. Fred W. Jenkins, Ph.D. Professor and Associate Dean for Collections and Operations University of Dayton Libraries 106A Roesch Library 300 College Park Dayton, OH 45469-1360