Maybe so, but it's nothing to do with OA.
Charles
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Dana
Roth [dzr...@library.caltech.edu]
Sent: 19 February 2010 18:33
To: american-scient
This has to be one of the most telling (and funniest) non sequitur I have ever
read. A textbook example if there ever were one. Why would Open Access (which is
about access, not peer review) lead to sloppy peer review? When an OA journals
such as PLOS biology with an impact factor hovering over 12
And don't forget the all too numerous instances of fraud which involved
hoodwinking "professional peer reviewers" in the USA, UK, etc. and involved
toll access journals. Of course high quality peer reviewing is important, but
such refereeing occurs in OA just as much as in TA.
Charles
Profes
The following message is posted for Jean-Claude Guedon.
(His posting was encrypted for some unknown reason.)
Jean-Claude Guédon:
This has to be one of the most telling (and funniest) non sequitur I
have ever read. A textbook example if there ever were one. Why would
Open Access (which is about a
Fyi...
Andy
--
Andy Powell
Research Programme Director
Eduserv
t: 01225 474319
m: 07989 476710
twitter: @andypowe11
blog: efoundations.typepad.com
www.eduserv.org.uk
-Original Message-
From: open-science-boun...@lists.okfn.org
[mailto:open-science-boun...@lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of
On 18-Feb-10, at 9:00 PM, Dana Roth wrote:
The January 25 issue of Chemistry & Industry (issue 2, 2010) has a
short article on research fraud which includes a sidebar on the
situation in China (see below). This suggests that, contrary to
Heather Morrison's suggestion, scholar led open access publ
Dear colleague,
the submission deadline at 01-MAR-2010 is approaching.
(Only two weekends away.)
Youâll find the full Call-for-Papers and the entry point to the
submission process at:
http://or2010.fecyt.es/Publico/Call/
We are looking forward to your contribution!
-- The Program Committee o
While that may be true ... isn't most of the TA fraud in the medical field ...
which occurs because long range studies can't reasonably be reproducable. I
would suggest that publication growing at an exponendial rate, that goes far
beyond what can be professionally peer-reviewed, is almost by d
On 19 Feb 2010, at 05:00, Dana Roth wrote:
> The January 25 issue of Chemistry & Industry (issue 2, 2010) has a short
> article on research fraud which includes a sidebar on the situation in China
> (see below). This suggests that, contrary to Heather Morrison's suggestion,
> scholar led open
==Apologies for cross-posting===
Open Repositories 2010 -- 10 days left for submissions!
The submission deadline for OR2010 at 01-MAR-2010 is approaching. (Only two
weekends away.)
You'll find the full Call-for-Papers and the entry point to the submission
process at: http://or2010.fecyt.es/Publ
Dana Roth wrote :
>
> This [concerns about research fraud in China] suggests that, contrary to
> Heather Morrison's suggestion,
> scholar led open access publishing is not a viable solution.
>
I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow the argument. Could Ms Roth
explain how one makes the link between,
11 matches
Mail list logo
