Ramy Karam Aziz
Not again! Why this blog is so obsessed with PLoS ONE? http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010...
That's a rhetorical question, right? - Mr. Gunn
No, I'm curious. And they're back to the 7 out of 10 problem! At parts the post sounds laudatory, but I smell a jealousy that I don't understand... - Ramy Karam Aziz
You don't understand why a blog that represents traditional society publishers would be jealous of PLoS ONE? - Mr. Gunn
I can understand why some people can be jealous, but I would expect a blogger/journalist to hide jealousy and act professionally. Notice that the same blog previously criticized PLoS of being obsessed with articles about publication metrics and impact... - Ramy Karam Aziz
You would expect a blogger/journalist to act professionally. But this is Phil Davis ;-) - Bora Zivkovic
What I don't understand is the assertion that PLoS authors are different because they have research funds. So... commercial journal authors are reporting on research they paid for out of their pockets? Really? - Jenny Reiswig
@Jenny: I'm just gonna keep plugging this until someone takes it apart, because if there are serious errors in my estimates I haven't seen them myself: page and colour charges at subscription journals are currently supported by NIH funds to the tune of some $100 million per year; with some caveats about OA and funding sources, that averages out to $1136 per article. (http://www.sennoma.net/main...) This figure is entirely consistent with estimates I have made from specific journals, and with the few self-reported figures I have been able to find (http://www.sennoma.net/main...). Thus there is little difference, in terms of author-side charges, between the average TA journal and PLoS ONE ($1300), or most BMC journals (standard APC is $1470), or all Hindawi journals (highest APC is $1400, most are under $850). - Bill Hooker
What is also totally unscientific and unmathematical in this post is the question of "whether PLoS ONE's" new impact factor is just a beginner's luck or a boost for some reason. With > 10,000 articles, this citation ration is likely to be VERY stable actually (like a buffered solution). Unlike journals that publish about 20-30 articles a year and are very sensitive to small changes, PLoS ONE is certainly going to keep this same citation rate. Perhaps the psychological effect will also make impact-fanatic authors start publishing their "more important" or "more citable" work in PLoS ONE. Looking at the 2010 statistics for example, in 6 months, there are 12,536 citations to the 2008-2009 articles. A ratio of 1.7, very consistent with that of 2009... - Ramy Karam Aziz
OK, let me try to explain Scholarly Kitchen....ah! They are essentially conservative in the sense that they understand the world in hierarchical terms, like Scala Naturae: there is going up to the top and there is pushing others down in order to get there. They do not understand how complex systems operate. In that hierarchy, they are elitist in the bad sense of the word - they idolize those who are on top and so, so, so want to join them and be the cool kids. Because cool kids get the money, and money can buy them chicks. Which explains why they are obsessed with rankings in various ways: rankings define who is cool and who is a prole. Which also explains their obsession with money: people who are obsessed with money see everything through the financial/business lens and are incapable of comprehending that many people are motivated by factors other than financial, e.g., to make the world a better place for our descendants. In their Savvy world, that is "hopelessly romantic" and they are hard-core "realists". That's their schtick, the way to inflate their empty gasbags to seem to mean something. This explains also a lot of details in this and other posts and forces one to realize they use some words in ways we don't. When they say "quality science" they don't mean "well-done science" like we do, they mean "novel, exciting, sexy, Earth-shaking, mind-boggling, paradigm-shifting science", i.e., the kind that gets published in GlamourMagz. Then they do a circular logic trick: what is published in GlamourMagz is good science. When they say "peer-review" they don't mean checking the quality of research, they mean keeping non-sexy research out. When they say "selective" they mean "elitist" and "keeping the non-sexy proletarian science out". Since they fawn over GlamourMagz and never look at the entirety of the publishing world, they think what GlamourMagz do is the norm - publishing 5% or so of submissions. In comparison to that, PLoS ONE's 70% looks huge. But if you look... more... - Bora Zivkovic
Yes, I think the comparison on those guys to political pundits is pretty apt. They want to be the definers of what is "reasonable" in terms of debate about academic publishing and the changes its going through. - Mr. Gunn
Nice rant, Bora. :-) I'll just add that, of all the TSK contributors, I still respect only one (David Crotty). He's smart and I believe he argues in good faith. - Bill Hooker
correct, David Crotty is smart. There are others who sometimes write intelligent posts about other forms of publishing, e.g., books, but once they delve into scholarly publishing, it is ...gah. - Bora Zivkovic
He argues in good faith, I'll agree, but he also advances some self-serving arguments of his own. - Mr. Gunn
Wow, Bora, spot on! One may sum it up by: they're English majors with business training - how would they ever understand anything about science with no scientific education? None of us schools them over there anymore, either, since they've proven to be so consistently resistant to learning. - Björn Brembs
I don't think any more of DC than any of the others - a scientist who blogs about how scientists don't blog. Professional societies listen to him over their own members and I think it keeps some of them from offering more support for science blogging - but then again, I'm not a scientist, either. - Christina Pikas
Wow. Thanks all. I got much more than a comprehensive answer to my question :D - Ramy Karam Aziz
Ha! That is nothing compared to this crap: http://www.scientificblogging.com/science... - Bora Zivkovic
aaaaaahhhh! I read 2 paragraphs - no more - can't stand it. good grief - Christina Pikas
Now that article really is below any standard for commenting - I mean would you comment on a post where the author claims the earth is flat, in the center of the universe and the stars are pinholes in the curtain of night? - Björn Brembs
I started commenting at that one (scientific blogging) -- anyone care to help me out? - Adam Ratner
Sorry Adam, I learned a tough lesson from commenting before. How can I comment on an article that starts by classifying journals as PEER-REVIEWED vs. OPEN-ACCESS? - Ramy Karam Aziz
Lesson learned. Shouldn't have bothered... - Adam Ratner
The problem is that these jealousy-driven posts are totally blind to the fact that there is already a full load of crappy journals that just publish for money and that fail miserably in getting any attention or respect. They also fail to see the incredibly poor quality papers in "top" journals. The good thing about PLoS ONE is that a "bad paper" is not really dangerous and can be easily trashed by comments or reviews. On the other hand, to "smuggle" a bad paper in Nature/Science, authors have to use buzz words, lie, make up things, twist facts, which makes it really dangerous and misleading. PLoS ONE eventually will teach scientists to talk about their data only, NOT THEIR DREAMS about it! - Ramy Karam Aziz
Oh holy crap. Check this out: http://www.scientificblogging.com/profile... That right there is enough to make me stop saying Open Science and start calling it "Science 2.0" again. - Bill Hooker
Bill, I read that and all I could think about was this: http://gawker.com/309684... Maybe we should call is Science 2.6 ;-) - Mr. Gunn
and what's with Democrats ruining agriculture? And how is that anti-science? WTF? - Bora Zivkovic
Bora, in your boredom we both know you will let no chance to foment blogosphere outrage escape you. :) I think the annoyance (about my article, anyway) is proponents being oversensitive. I say clearly that PLoS One is doing both volume and credibility well but you get paid to defend PLoS so I understand your defensiveness. It isn't warranted, though. We have written about probably 100 PLoS One articles and I defended it against Nature plenty. Anyway, if Mike E. reads it and decides I am off base, I will buy him a gimlet the next time I see him. - Science 2.0
Hank, your post is too full of factual errors, emotional projections and thorough misunderstanding of the publishing world to warrant a response. Just the fact that you confuse the OA-TA with peer-review/non-peer-review in the first paragraph is sufficient headache. You SHOULD know that most OA journals are peer-reviewed. You should know that until last month most of the papers in PNAS were not peer-reviewed. You did not link to any instances of PLoS staff "gloating over IF" because you could not find them: PLoS as organization, and PLOS staffers as individuals did not put ANY commentary anywhere online, except two: one by Pete one by me, both indicating that the general PLoS reaction is one big yawn. You invented that statement out of your own imagination - it tells much more about you than about PLoS. We do not live in the IF world any more, so we do not care, and we laugh at those who still do. Otherwise, everything I wrote about the TSK post applies to yours - doubly, as you made even worse factual mistakes. And I am not defensive because of boredom, or salary, but because I expect better from you, and am thoroughly disappointed. - Bora Zivkovic
What Bora said! And I'm not paid by PLoS. I really wonder what's up with people who obviously neither know science nor scientific publishing trying to save science from scientists? I mean, do I go to engineers and tell them how to build bridges? Sheesh, why are so many people trying so hard to prove the Dunning-Kruger effect these days? - Björn Brembs
The audience is the barometer I use, not an employee of PLoS, but that aside, I still don't see the issue you have. No one seems to be confused about what I wrote except people who work for PLoS and the annoyance seems to be my questioning how much peer review 4400 articles can have. - Science 2.0
+1 on Bora. And I am not a PLoS employee. - Kubke
No one seems to be confused about what you wrote except you. Everyone else understands very well what you wrote and clearly sees all the factual errors, fallacies and underlying biases of your text. We are responding because we understand the world of publishing and you obviously don't. You don't see the difference between Toll Access and Peer-Review, you invent "gloating" at PLoS offices, you link, apparently with approval, to discredited posts and articles that enemies of OA have penned (and were slaughtered online for doing so), you have no idea how PLoS ONE operates, and you seem to understand my motivations better than I do - a mind-reader? If so, a bad one. - Bora Zivkovic
And Hank seems to have rather selective attention, not noticing how people bash him who are not PLoS employees. Which, of course, is one of the prerequisites for writing this sort of drivel. - Björn Brembs
The comments at TSK post are taking an interesting direction....starting roughly with David Crotty on June 24 at 9:47 pm. Does he really not see that "light" is pejorative? I suggest calling it "objective peer-review" in contrast to "subjective peer-review" that most other journals do. - Bora Zivkovic
Pete Binfield has actually gone on record as saying there will be no "gloating" or anything like that:http://ff.im/msYuw +1 Bora, Hank, don't you have to be somewhere in 26 minutes? (in case you missed it above: http://gawker.com/309684...) <- What Hank's bio reminds me of - Mr. Gunn