On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Adi Kamdar <[email protected]> wrote > > > It's interesting how they put PLoS ONE in there, though, which most > researchers I've talked to tend to regard as the "dumping ground for bad > science," or simply an outlet for scientific publications that researchers > know won't make it into more esteemed journals. > > Yikes. I wonder if that's grounded in fact or just FUD? Hearing about PLoS's (partially successful) struggle to get scientists to use open access journals was actually what first got me passionate about free culture issues; that people would opt for the "esteemed" journals instead of the newer but more accessible one in cases that were literally life or death for many people struck me as something that I needed to get involved with.
I can't speak too much to PLoS ONE's credibility, but it is a peer reviewed journal and not quite a "dumping ground." Some of PLoS's other journals, like PLoS Biology, are more obviously successful: in 2007 that journal had the highest impact factor of any ISI-categorized "Biology" journal. > -Adi > > Parker -- parker higgins berlin, germany http://parkerhiggins.net gmail / gchat: [email protected] twitter / identi.ca: @thisisparker skype: thisisparker please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a proprietary platform
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
