From: Ivy Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 06:32:23 +0000 I find it fascinating that this paper attracted such wide notice and that, as a result, so many of us have learned so much about the challenges posed by the internationalization of scientific communication. Would that have happened with a toll access journal, I wonder? And no sting was necessary to bring this about. Ivy Anderson California Digital Library > On Mar 9, 2016, at 2:08 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Michael Magoulias <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:39:23 +0000 > > Since my original post sparked a number of comments, I'll do my best > to answer the most substantive points in one response without boring > everyone into an early grave. > > First, careful readers will have noted that I referenced three > occasions in which scholars formerly positive, or at the very least > neutral, on PLOS One reversed themselves in the view of experience. > One was the scholar who had been asked to review his own paper, the > second was the commentary within the scientific community on the "Hand > of God" article which expanded considerably after I submitted my > comment on Thursday, and third was a former section editor who > disassociated himself from the journal on the grounds that it was a > "dumping ground." > > I thought it was worth making my comments since all three of these > cases -- and if you want to call them "anecdotal," it's worth keeping > in mind that anecdotes can be just as empirically valid as anything > else -- occurred within a three-week period, which seemed to me much > more than simple coincidence. For established journals, that kind of > anti-trifecta could mean eternal disgrace, if not death, and at the > very least, would normally result in staffing changes and a > re-evaluation of editorial policies. While even the best of journals > can occasionally be fooled by cases of plagiarism or fabricated data, > the combination of triviality, horrendous writing, and misplaced > metaphysics in the "Hand of God" article just doesn't happen in the > leading subscription-based journals. This obviously doesn't mean that > every article published by standard journals is brilliant, but it does > mean that the kinds of peer-review failure seen in PLOS (and let's not > forget the author who was asked to review his own paper) almost never > happen in the best of the journals that PLOS was intended to replace > or supersede. > > So if you want to defend PLOS, the only recourse you can have is to > some version of "not every single article it publishes is quite that > awful" or, to quote the Osmund Brothers: "one bad apple don't spoil > the whole bunch, girl." > > This is undoubtedly true, but it is hardly a strong defense. It is > essentially the defense used by Allison of the University of > California Press which announced over a year ago that it intended to > get into the megajournal game. Since to date, its Collabra service has > published six articles, it's really more of a "minijournal" at the > moment, but the aspiration is there. It also shares with PLOS One a > crucial element of editorial philosophy: "The journal’s review process > will focus on scientific, methodological and ethical soundness and > credibility, and will not focus on more subjective notions of novelty, > topicality, or scope." > > This philosophy is the heart of the problem for all megajournals (or > non-megajournals, for that matter) that share some version of it. It > represents nothing less than a repudiation of what all leading > journals explicitly aim for and quite often achieve. The contrast with > a journal like Nature couldn't be more striking. Nature highlights the > following characteristics of the papers it accepts: "novel," "of > extreme importance," and "ideally interesting to researchers in other > related disciplines." Nature sums up its philosophy by saying that "a > paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence > thinking in the field." > > One of the graver instances of muddle-headedness in the editorial > philosophies of PLOS and Collabra is the notion that considerations of > novelty and significance are damagingly "subjective," whereas notions > of "the scientific," "credibility," and "soundness" (applied to both > methodology and ethics) are not. Nothing could be further from the > case, as the extensive literature on objectivity in the philosophy of > science demonstrates. It is impossible, and hardly even desirable, to > have value-free science, and no one has so far been able to develop a > statistical approach to data that can remove every hint of personal > bias. This does not mean that all scientific research is hopelessly > flawed or that there aren't effective methods of minimizing bias, but > it does mean that the key editorial driver of this kind of OA > publishing rests on a deeply flawed understanding of the nature of > meaningful research. The most important research is never a catalogue > of mute facts or data points, but always reflects considerable amounts > of interpretation, judgement and creativity. > > It's a shame that the attempt to find another way of publishing > academic papers has meant departing not just from a particular > business model but also from shared and valid notions of quality. This > is a case of drowning the baby before you throw it out with the bath > water. I can see that for those whose worldview is based on the rosy > and unfounded fantasy that the "market" is always right, knows how to > correct itself, and is the ideal mechanism for settling all questions > of value, there is no problem here. If the World wants lots of not > very good articles, and you can charge a minimum of several hundred > dollars to slap each one on a website, then you have got yourself a > going concern. But I can't think of a single society or editorial body > I've ever worked with that would seriously entertain even for a moment > adopting the editorial philosophy of PLOS One. That would represent a > betrayal of their academic mission. The idea of publishing > non-significant articles in non-significant journals would certainly > not be enough to get me out of bed. I would have to find a way to > convince myself that I was doing something very different instead. > > Michael > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alison Mudditt <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:05:17 -0800 > > I hate to point out the obvious, but I think you’re putting two and > two together here and getting at least five, Michael. What you have > highlighted is a clear problem with the standard of at least some peer > review for PLoS One, which you then extrapolate to a problem with peer > review across megajournals in general and thus a question about the > sustainability of this form of OA publishing (if not all OA publishing > – I’m not quite clear). The conclusion you draw isn’t supported by all > megajournals at all. And peer review itself is of course an entirely > separate construct to that of the megajournal – there’s good and bad > peer review across all journals and plenty of examples of poor or lazy > “traditional” peer review. > > That said, I completely agree that you’ve highlighted a very real > issue that requires our attention and response, but I suspect that the > market will sort itself out on this one. There are now many more OA > publishing options open to researchers, an increasing number of which > are run by scholarly associations who are very protective of their > quality brands. Thus if a journal such as PLoS One cannot maintain > appropriate standards, the community will simply move elsewhere. > Perhaps the declining number of PLoS One publications signals that > this is starting to happen. > > Alison Mudditt > Director, University of California Press > 510-883-8240 > www.ucpress.edu