From: Michael Magoulias <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:49:19 +0000 I would question this view of numerical significance, Rick. First, if you are going to say that three isn't enough, then someone will inevitably come back with the question "well, what is enough, then?" Whatever answer you give will be just as open to the charge of arbitrariness. There is no getting around the fact that at any numerical marker of significance (which is a judgement of value, and therefore unavoidably subjective and arbitrary) will not persuade all of the people all of the time. Secondly, everything is context dependent. There are plenty of cases where three is more than enough to take action. Three deaths from a prescription drug already administered to hundreds of thousands of patients can be enough to pull the drug from the market. One case of strep throat or head lice has been known to cause parents to freak out. One instance of plagiarism can destroy a career. In the context of scholarly journals, where the place of publication can have a massive impact on one's employment prospects, a single highly publicized case of exceptionally poor quality control could very well change submission behaviors significantly. A journal is just as much as set of perceptions as it is a collection of articles. These perceptions are shared by communities within which word travels fast. As you will remember from several Scholarly Kitchen posts, PLOS's impact factor and submission numbers were already in decline prior to this most recent incident. If you have been following the commentary in the news media and the blogosphere as well, then you will have noted that this particular article has elicited negative assessments that extend beyond its immediate occasion from many more than three scientists. This is not to deny, of course, that there have also been defenders of PLOS. My original comments in any event were framed by the suggestion -- not a categorical statement -- that there were reasons to think that a trend in the perception of PLOS One on the part of authors/scientists (not publishers or librarians) was emerging. There are plenty of people who don't like that suggestion for any number of reasons, but that in itself is not enough to discount it. The weight of existing evidence, provisional though it may be, still seems more in its favor than not. -----Original Message----- From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 01:55:35 +0000 >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 Not if you’re using three of them as a basis on which to draw broad conclusions about a very large data set. PLOS One publishes tens of thousands of articles every year. Three anecdotes about poor editorial oversight, in this context, do not constitute a valid sample. >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. I can’t speak for everyone else who has responded to you, Michael, but I have no interest in either defending or attacking PLOS. I do think it’s important to base criticisms on valid and rigorous data, though. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah [log in to unmask]