tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112268695292653929.post5383042076780974486..comments2023-06-23T07:00:51.542-07:00Comments on TMI yet TLI: science as I see it: Open Access - solid reasoning, or a bunch of hypothetical statements?Gracehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09564363982981236242noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112268695292653929.post-7531708233619645282013-07-04T01:57:56.943-07:002013-07-04T01:57:56.943-07:00I don't know they would always want the cheape...I don't know they would always want the cheapest...I think they too want the best bang for their buck balancing journal impact factor (whatever that metric is) along with cost. Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09564363982981236242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112268695292653929.post-35712516622596671312013-07-02T06:18:58.711-07:002013-07-02T06:18:58.711-07:00One issue that I'd be concerned about if funde...One issue that I'd be concerned about if funders start imposing limits on overhead, is that this would push researchers into publishing in the lowest cost journal which may or may not be the most appropriate. I don't personally think funders should be dictating where a researcher publishes her/his findings.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12748593723969651476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112268695292653929.post-29400460733969517262013-06-22T04:59:03.081-07:002013-06-22T04:59:03.081-07:00Ariellicle! My point was more that the cost doesn&...Ariellicle! My point was more that the cost doesn't disappear - it just moves elsewhere as budgets evolve. The amount of overhead on grants is already completely and utterly ridiculous in some departments, and I think more publishing in open access journals will just increase it. Unless funding agencies start imposing strict limits on overhead, which I think they should. Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09564363982981236242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112268695292653929.post-34187171705252636592013-06-22T04:50:52.764-07:002013-06-22T04:50:52.764-07:00Thanks! I mostly meant peer review, but also a bit...Thanks! I mostly meant peer review, but also a bit of professional editors and copyediting too. That is based on my one experience with a non-PLoS open access journal, though. That is not to say that the most reputable journals haven't published a fair number of articles which have or should have been retracted - or at least severely edited - to account for falsified data and/or sweeping, unbacked conclusions. Or that their copyediting is even vaguely effective (It no longer comes as a surprise to me if there is an unlabeled axis on a graph in GCB, or if the units are impossible). I guess the answer is that scientists need to take greater responsibility for their writing - I was very surprised after my PI submitted a paper with obvious typos and said that it was OK because the copyeditors would pick up on them. Even though everyone we interacted with at the journal had very poor English. <br /><br />As for why we need journals, I think there are a few answers. First is that we are trained to do keyword-driven searches to home in on exactly what we want to know, but this makes us miss out on large chunks of knowledge we might not think was related until we stumble across it in a table of contents. There are of course various "articles like this" tools, but they aren't smart enough at predicting what I might be interested in. The second reason is that, as much as the science should matter more than where it is published, there is a dominance hierarchy of journals, and the more top tier journals you publish in, the faster the track to tenure. The third reason is that I think people like the fact that if they want to know what is cutting edge in the world, they can go to Science or Nature and read up on it. So I guess that would be journals are needed because we trust the judgements of others to determine what is important - it is like paying someone to open and sort through the mail. Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09564363982981236242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112268695292653929.post-15707100754612533362013-06-21T16:16:14.508-07:002013-06-21T16:16:14.508-07:00On the subject of PLoS One and editing/peer review...On the subject of PLoS One and editing/peer review, they have peer review for technical and ethical accuracy, like reputable closed-access journals; however, they don't make decisions based on novelty or impact to the field, unlike most other (society or what have you) journals. So interdisciplinary or less "sexy" papers that are still based on good science have a better chance of getting published. On the subject of fees, it is often possibly to get some or all of an OA fee paid by the department or another institutional office; and, for less-well-funded research and for research, from, say, developing countries, PLoS and many other OA journals will often reduce or waive the fee if you explain your situation to them.Arielle Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14389083758169188060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112268695292653929.post-49251002285277982142013-06-21T15:26:34.901-07:002013-06-21T15:26:34.901-07:00Great post, Grace! I'm wondering what you mean...Great post, Grace! I'm wondering what you mean by "editing," though. Do you mean peer-reviewing? Professional editors making decisions? Copyediting? PLoS ONE goes through the first two, but not the latter.<br /><br />I wonder though -- here I'm being especially (and intentionally) provocative -- in a DIY publishing world why we need journals at all. What say you to that?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15883232424719850731noreply@blogger.com