FWIW, I strongly support open access, have been pushing for OA policies here at Yale for a few years now, and I think the ideals, motivations, and effects of PLoS are brilliant. In fact, we just talked about open access during our free culture meeting today and what we'll be doing during Open Access Week... an eager new young (female) member offered to walk around in a trench coat delivering... uh... an extended metaphor to open access. Hmm.
This email from a professor I've talked to—where I got the dumping ground quote—may help. Sure it's not 100% positive, but I believe that academic opinions about the realities of the scholarly world are to be taken into consideration much more than my own, or really anyone's who hasn't participated in the publishing process. Having strong opinions about open access in general (which I do... I'll support open access strongly till the end) is not the same as having opinions about the nature of the journals themselves: "Yes, I like the fact that anyone can download a PLoS paper anywhere in the world and we are proud to have published in PLoS Biology and PLoS Pathogens. However, I am not an open access ideologue. We will submit to Nature, Cell when I think that our manuscript has a good chance. With respect to our last paper, I thought that chances for Cell, Nature were slim and that it would be an endless process. In contrast, I thought that the basic science oriented editors at PLoS Biology would appreciate the fundamental nature of our work and indeed, it went in rather smoothly. Ideally I submit to the journal where it also comes out to make the publishing process as productive as possible. With respect to the PLoS journals, I think it also helps the impact factor when science is accessible and it has put pressure on other journals to allow access at least after 6 month. Also, all PLoS journals are different. PLoS Biology is very well respected and has a broad audience. We appreciated that it is run by competent editors. But it is a bit slow and it would help the standing of the journal if the reviewing process be faster. However, we have not experienced endless revisions and requests like it is common for Cell etc. PLoS Pathogens impact factor is now as high as PNAS or JCB. It is competently run by scientist colleagues (founded by my previous mentor John Young). It is the journal I am most frequently reviewing for and I will be happy to submit to this journal in the future. PLoS ONE is different. For some it has become a dumping ground for bad science, which is really unfortunate. We appreciated its existence and have used the journal when we wanted to publish reports that need to be out there or when a prevailing dogma did not allow us to publish elsewhere - when the work was blocked at other journals." -Adi On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Conley Owens <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
