Right, right to your clarifications. I didn't mean to imply that they were for-profit, etc.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Alex Kozak <[email protected]> wrote: > Mostly useless point of clarification: PLoS is a non-profit (they don't > "make money", they sustain their activities). > The main idea behind a publication like PLoS ONE is that the venue isn't an > indicator of quality. So when someone criticizes the entire publication as > low quality, they're sort of missing the point of it. There are high-quality > or otherwise useful articles, and there are less useful articles. But the > name of the journal itself ought not to indicate either way, and PLoS ONE is > an effort to move that quality evaluation towards the article. > But like you mention Conley, that does make discovery of the useful stuff a > bit harder. > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Conley Owens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 > > > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
