Hm, I'm not sure I was clear. This is a case study that, in my opinion, clears open access from most stigmas.
The researcher I talked to has published in PLoS Pathogens, PLoS Biology, *and *PLoS ONE. All are open access journals. He's clearly much more proud of his work that is published in PLoS Path and Bio; his opinion about PLoS Pathogens is glowing. His work that went into PLoS ONE was side stuff that he wanted to be published but wouldn't cut the rigorous standards of a more impactful journal. All of these journals are open access; thus, the fact that it's "open" isn't a variable—it's a constant. We can rule it out as a matter of discussion. This just goes to show that there are a wide array of open access journals—some have huge impact, some don't—*like any other journal*. I don't think that "reproducing opinions" about the scientific opinion of a certain journal spreads misinformation; in this case, I think it helps our cause. -Adi On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > Good points Adi and Alec. However I stick by my initial skepticism of the > feedback you've gotten Adi. > > Informed or not, such assertions unfortunately and inevitably perpetuate an > unnecessary negative image of the open access journal, even one that > receives due criticism since it does not publish the most interesting or > well-received science. Even on the FC list I do not think it good to assume > our ideas of open access are all at the same maturity, which would thus > allow us to take such comments with a grain if salt. > > It is imperative we refrain from reproducing opinions in this manner else > we become complicit in the accumulation of wealth of misinformation and > misinterpretation surrounding open access journals. > > Adi you're right about the TreeHugger article, they could have gone with a > more clearly impactful journal. This may inform us of the naivete of the > article or some misunderstandings of PLoS's journal structure. However, I > take issue with the follow-up justification you provided for the reasons > above. > > - Matt > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Adi Kamdar" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, Sep 29, 2010 8:00 am > > Subject: [FC-discuss] Open Source Projects featured on TreeHugger > To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in > particular" <[email protected]> > > It's hard, if not impossible, to speak of PLoS by lumping them all > together. > PLoS Pathogens, for example, is an extremely well respected and high impact > (thus very competitive) journal. The "dumping ground" quote came from a > pretty esteemed researcher here at Yale, and other researchers I've talked > to have corroborated on that opinion. They all think it's unfortunate that > PLoS ONE has become like that, but sometimes the reality of the situation > strays from our free cultural ideals. Journal publishing isn't all that > clean-cut happy-dappy as people make it out to be... > > And no, it's not the openness of PLoS ONE that makes it a dumping ground. > It's just not well established, and they're willing to accept publications > that go against the standard dogma. If you're going to tout an open access > journal (re the Treehugger article), PLoS Path or other journals would be > MUCH better examples. > > -Adi > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Alec Story <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah, for biology PLoS One is pretty well-respected. Obviously, > > introducing any new journal (open or not) is going to have challenges > with > > impact and quality. I think that people attacking the lower-quality ones > > are mistaking openness for the fault, where really it's just that the > > journal isn't popular enough to have a high impact (yet?). > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:16 AM, [email protected] < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> That "dumping ground" quote made me lol. Glad you take inspiration from > >> PLoS, Parker, I'm there with you. Adi, did that feedback go through some > >> reputable, peer-reviewed process? ;) > >> > >> PLoS One may not be the most prestigious journal but old feedback from > >> some UC librarians suggested to me it is a solid journal. > >> > >> In fact I contend that the PLoS journals arent even that radical (read: > >> scary, non-scientific)! It is the same peer-review model, same closed up > >> scientific process, same busted reputation engine. > >> > >> However, these are big issues and PLoS need not necessarily take them > on. > >> I appreciate PLoS for what they have done to reformulate access, > revenue, > >> and business models for publishing science research. This may be what > makes > >> them worthy of recognition. > >> > >> - Matt > >> > >> ----- Reply message ----- > >> From: "Parker Higgins" <[email protected]> > >> Date: Tue, Sep 28, 2010 11:49 pm > >> Subject: [FC-discuss] Open Source Projects featured on TreeHugger > >> To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in > >> particular" <[email protected]> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Alec Story > > Cornell University > > Biological Sciences, Computer Science 2012 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
