"To suggest – as Science (though not Bohannon) are trying to do – that the problem
with scientific publishing is that open access enables internet scamming is like saying
that the problem with the international finance system is that it enables Nigerian wire
transfer scams.
There are deep problems with science publishing. But the way to fix this is not to curtain
open access publishing. It is to fix peer review."
On Oct 7, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Melissa Hagemann
<melissa.hagemann(a)opensocietyfoundations.org> wrote:
Hi Giacomo,
Yes, this “sting” operation which Science Magazine carried out is getting much press.
However, asthe Guardian points out, the real revelations uncovered are the problems with
the peer review system:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/04/scienc…
And Heather Joseph of SPARC highlights the serious methodological flaws, which you point
out below, of Science’s actions:
http://www.sparc.arl.org/blog/science-magazine%E2%80%99s-open-access-sting.
Unfortunately, for those who just read the Science article, it does cast OA publishing in
a bad light.
Melissa Hagemann
OSF
From: openaccess-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:openaccess-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Giacomo Cossa
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:26 AM
To: openaccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [OpenAccess] OA and peer-review
You've might already noticed.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Interesting article from Science about the new boom of low-level journals, most of which
are OA. Despite the clear disclaimer at the end ("everyone agrees that open-access is
a good thing"), the article's mood is quite skeptical about OA, although the
conclusions could maybe have been drawn also for non-OA low-level journals (but the author
didn't test them).
Giacomo
_______________________________________________
OpenAccess mailing list
OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess