From: "Pikas, Christina K." <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 01:30:21 +0000 Seems like a lot of people are making hasty judgments based only on a word, most definitely an unfortunate choice, in the abstract and not on the science in the paper. A marine biologist whom I respect believes the article should not have been retracted: http://www.southernfriedscience.com/this-paper-should-not-have-been-retracted-handofgod-highlights-the-worst-aspects-of-science-twitter/ "The authors responded to PLOS’s decision and revealed that, far from an attempt to insert creationism into the scientific literature, their references to a Creator were simply the result of translating a Chinese idiom into English, and that, in a more literal sense, the idiom meant “nature as guided by natural processes like selection”. In that light, I’m in 100% agreement with Dr24Hours: The “Creator” paper, Post-pub Peer Review, and Racism Among Scientists." It definitely is not a good basis to judge an entire publishing paradigm on. Further, PLoS One's JIF varies a lot from year to year which says more about the JIF than it does about mega journals in my opinion (for what that's worth!) Christina -----Original Message----- From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:31:34 +0000 Does this situation reflect a problem with OA megajournals generally, or a problem with PLOS One in particular? And actually, does it reflect a serious problem with PLOS One, or does it represent an anomalous poor decision on the part of PLOS One? How does PLOS One’s batting average with regard to problems like this stack up to the industry average? In order to accept this as evidence of either the inferiority of megajournals in general or of PLOS One itself, I would need much more data than the anecdote below. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah [log in to unmask]