From: Fred Jenkins <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:34:24 -0400 Fred Friend is, of course, entitled to his opinion. I don't think there is anything unfair (or inaccurate) in the observation that many OA advocates immediately circle the wagons whenever OA journals are criticized, whether rightly or wrongly. It would be much easier to have productive conversations about OA if it were not a matter of religious fervor to so many. Re. Thomas Krichel's message: Plagiarism is only one problem and of much less concern than articles that are just wrong or based on cooked evidence. Robots are not so likely to solve that aspect of failed peer review. And, in response to Scott, I certainly don't exempt the toll journals from this failing. We see far to many retracted papers in ostensibly sound, respected journals. More of them should have been caught before publication. It will never be a perfect system, but it has to be better than this. 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 On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:27 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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