is the easiest way to share online.
Learn more »
to Grace's comments
New NPG open access pub for 2011: Scientific Reports. Technically-sound work, no impact threshold:
January 6, 2011
8 other people
what do you know .. a PLoS ONE clone. nature precedings rejection rate must still be high then. -
17 more comments
These guidelines sound vaguely familiar? "Manuscripts judged to be technically sound will be sent for formal review. At this point the Editorial Board Member has two options: - The Editorial Board Member may choose to contact one or more referees who are not associated with Scientific Reports to conduct the peer review - The Editorial Board Member may choose to conduct the peer review themselves, based on their own experience and expertise" -
I think I'm developing a reputation at NPG. Every time anyone there sends me any announcement or points to a press release it always starts: "I know you won't like the non-commercial licence...but..." -
This is where Nature tries to have their cake and eat it, too -- they are launching their first real scientific journal, where "impact" is not judged (guessed at), but you can bet they are still going to push the idea that it's somehow better because of the Nature brand. This is why I have been hesitant to laud or support other NPG initiatives like Digital Science: if you are a...
Yeah, first trash PLoS One and then copy them, that's how you build credibility! -
Am I supposed to say something? (ducks) -
GUYS!!! You never invite me to the party. I don't check this that often so if you're going to have some fun over here, could *someone* just check the "reply" box for their comment to give me an alert? Pretty please? -
don't you get e-mail alerts when someone comments on your stuff? -
@Cameron, your reputation at NPG WRT to non-comm licenses only extends to me, so fear not :-) but Graham clearly had the same thought (as have others) so I can't be too far wrong.., -
@Björn Brembs To my knowledge NPG as a business has never "trashed" PLoS ONE. I'm aware that Nature editors have written some critical pieces, but they are editorially independent and we can't influence either way. Please let me know if I'm wrong here, we're not in the business of trashing others. -
@Grace See my blog post of this morning for a more nuanced view. The single liner was tongue-in-cheek for the long-timers here :-) -
It does NPG no credit to cower behind "editorial independence". You print it, you own it. -
@Björn thanks for pointing to your blog post. I've posted a comment over there. -
@Bill, I'm not cowering, and stand by my editorial colleagues and what they write.@noah Apologies for hijacking this comment thread. -
Just to be clear, previous pieces deemed critical of PLoS ONE were put forward by the Nature News team and editors, not the manuscript editors. And indeed, editorial independence is extremely important, regardless of whether one agrees with one's colleagues. -
"deemed critical" -- what is that, Nature Newspeak? Unpack editorial independence a little for me, please: is Nature forced to publish anything Declan Butler writes? Or if, having chosen to publish an opinion piece (by DB or anyone else), should they be expected to bear the consequences? I don't understand the point about Nature News rather than manuscript editors. -
Manuscript editors have no bearing on the news editors who have no bearing on the manuscripts, with neither suffering any pressure from the business/financial side to do anything. But all parts of the company deal with the consequences of what is published, whether or not they agree with specific aspects. That's "editorial independence." Doesn't get much more simple, bro. If you don't...
Plenty of people, including me, did take it up with the news team at the time (see comments here:
). But here we are talking about Grace's claim that "NPG as a business has never "trashed" PLoS ONE". You may not be able to comment on that, but Grace just did. So, even if Butler can publish in NN anything he decides to, you've said...
Yes, and the consequences include listening to your disenchantment and criticism being expressed here, which I have. And here I am, accepting both. As for your questions, I thought I made my points clear in the previous comment. Have a great weekend. -
Other ways to read this feed:
©2015 FriendFeed -
Tools & Widgets