Useful summary of the successes and failures of the PLoS open access business model. - Michael Nielsen
That's what the original article should have been. That one was just very poorly written and looked too much like a hatchet job - Deepak
yes, this is a much better article even if I don't agree with him. - Pedro Beltrao
The article is mostly just a statement of facts about what PLoS has achieved on the business side, versus what they set out to achieve. It looks to me like an exceptionally useful document to OA advocates - OA journals need sustainable business models, and Timo is dead right that the best way to achieve this is open discussion. - Michael Nielsen
Much better than the original. Still I think Timo misses the larger point -- see esp. comments by Bjoern Brembs -- it's time to do away entirely with the *whole concept* of "high-end" journals. Journal-level metrics (impact factor, rejection rates, perceived prestige) simply do not work as a way to rank and evaluate projects, ideas or scientists. Let peer review do what it can do -- weed out the obvious crap -- and let search and database software and the research community do the rest. - Bill Hooker
It also amuses me to see Nature folks with their lace hankies pressed to their horrified mouths over the "kneejerk backlash" and "internet outrage". The original piece was outrageous -- I think most of the responses have been quite calm and reasonable. I guess it all depends whose ox is being gored, no? - Bill Hooker
I'd like to see a publication discussing the economics of scientific publishing in detail. It's clear that there are ways to sustain open publishing. I'd like to get a better understanding of the cost structure, esp in a purely internet publishing environment. - Deepak
@Bill - agree, some of the Nature people don't seem to get internet debate. Sure, it happens rapidly, is occasionally hasty and not fully thought through, brash or even a little rude at times, but we're hardly descending to, say, YouTube comment level here. In general I see commentary by interested parties, rather than a mob waving torches. - Neil Saunders
Hey - I missed this discussion but just posted to Timos blog saying basically what Bill H said --- the original piece was outrageous - Jonathan Eisen
I also commented on the post (of course with my usual plug on getting rid of journals). But I also had another idea: with editors choosing after peer-review, each editor would get the chance to establish a track record: how many of the chosen papers really were high-end? Measuring editor performance objectively... - Björn Brembs
I'm not seeing any comments showing up on the Nascent piece... - Bill Hooker
Has anyone got a delicious tag with all the commentary on this? - Cameron Neylon
I totally agree with Bill. It would improve the quality of reviews by reducing prestige journal reviewer burden also. - Mr. Gunn
@Bill, I agree that assessment of value is poorly serviced by current metrics, but disagree that it will be possible to get rid of high end journals in one form or another. IMHO there are two sides to new publishing models, one that allows data to be shared, mashed up and read by computers. Another that helps people to focus their attention. Content rich, time poor is driving dynamic for the existence of exclusivity in a knowledge marketplace. Automatic tool for doing this may be on the way, am waiting. - Ian Mulvany
@Ian, good points. I didn't care for Declan's article but it sure has spawned some excellent conversation. - Bill Hooker
