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
Thanks Giacomo for the link.
Here's what I found as the best critique of the Science article: http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.ca/2013/10/unscientific-spoof-paper-accept...
Aubrey
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Giacomo Cossa gia.cossa@gmail.com wrote:
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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
Hi Giacomo,
Yes, this "sting" operation which Science Magazine carried out is getting much press. However, as the 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/science... 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@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:openaccess-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Giacomo Cossa Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:26 AM To: openaccess@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
Michael Eisen's response, for those of you who haven't seen it:
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439
"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@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/science... 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@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:openaccess-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Giacomo Cossa Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:26 AM To: openaccess@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
openaccess@lists.wikimedia.org