My 2c of clarification. I'm not an expert, but I did spend a bit of time and academia (bioinformatics), and can agree that PLoS ONE is not very highly regarded.
>From the PLoS ONE about page: "PLoS ONE will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them)." While papers in PLoS ONE are not "bad science", it's usually one of the last place someone wants to put their paper because a paper with more importance could have gotten into some other journal or conference. People read other journals knowing that almost every entry is going to be high-impact, but this is not the case with PLoS ONE. In addition, because PLoS one doesn't make money on selling journals, they make money on the individual authors paying them to publish their paper. Combine this with the fact that many papers get accepted, you may see why PLoS loses a little respect. They will publish anything that's valid (even if it's useless) if you give them money. These are just things I've picked up along the way. If some of my statements are incorrect, I apologize. ~cco3 On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Parker Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, +1 on Alex and Matt's points (and it's not zero-sum here... that's not > -2 to you, Adi :) > > I think that as much as PLoS journals resemble other journals in terms of > the quality spread, it's still within our mission to support their efforts. > I absolutely don't think that means blindly or naively singing paeans to > PLoS (or GIMP, or Linux, or CC, or whatever the free or open thing in > question is) but I do think we should be very careful about spreading FUD. > > "A dumping ground for bad science" is a very seductive phrase, precisely > because it plays to the concerns of people who don't know the facts, and > that makes it liable to long outlive its truth. I'm not saying it's not true > now, because frankly I'm not equipped to evaluate the papers published > there, but I do know that it's a sad reality of scientific and academic > publishing that that particular consideration can turn out to be > self-perpetuating. Scientists who would otherwise be interested in the > ideals PLoS stands for could be dissuaded by having heard that phrase > repeated once too often, and without their content, the journal could come > to be pretty barren of good science. > > We're all adults, and I'm sure the PLoS people have thick skin and want to > improve their project, so criticism should be welcomed. In a small way, > however, certain brands of criticism--the kind where you repeat a > "commonly-held" and unspecific belief--may actually be materially harmful to > the journal, and in turn the open access movement. > > I know you don't want to do harm of that kind, and it's totally a matter of > personal judgment whether your observation falls into that category of > criticism and also whether this list is a private enough forum for you to > voice it anyway. Words and messages are powerful things, though, and I think > we should definitely be careful with them. > > Parker > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Alex Kozak <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> This isn't an issue specific to PLoS or open access journals. A lot of >> people equate "open" with "low quality". This happens all the time with OER >> and other open content. A lot of it has to do with volume (more content >> means more of both "good" and "bad"), but a lot of it just has to do with >> not being able to use the name of the journal itself as an indicator of the >> quality of the content. >> In any case, PLoS is doing much more than just publishing articles. Among >> other things, they're helping innovate meta-analysis of scientific >> disciplines and create new metrics for evaluating impact. >> AK >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:27 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Alex Kozak >> Program Assistant >> Creative Commons >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss >> > > > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
