tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11163695.post3889611777846076982..comments2023-05-20T03:16:05.611-07:00Comments on Anders blog: PLoS and the future of publishing - as framed by NatureAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00807216800351567752noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11163695.post-60851686731103762672008-07-09T12:26:00.000-07:002008-07-09T12:26:00.000-07:00I totally agree on the framing aspect of the Natur...I totally agree on the framing aspect of the Nature article. They desperately need to keep the discussion away from a rational and pervasive scientific publishing reform. The logical reform would yield a system in which peer-review comes first and the popularity contest (i.e. editorial pick à la Nature and other GlamMagz) second. This would mean getting rid of all the idiosyncrasies of today's publishing system while keeping all the positive aspects. By extension this would entail that the publishers have to either completely revamp their business model or face going out of business.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11163695.post-82872606606779353112008-07-09T07:59:00.000-07:002008-07-09T07:59:00.000-07:00anders, i totally agree with you on the financing ...anders, i totally agree with you on the financing issues, and yes, plos does include a paragraph in their faq about PLOS journals not being financially self-sustaining, but there have been numerous articles from plos in the past (esp the initial years) where they did claim that they would demonstrate that it would be possible to publish a selective, non-profit, journal with low author-fees and that it was the profit aspect of journals like nature and science that kept the fees high. and nature has been arguing against this for years... <BR/><BR/>cheers, suresh (aka mad on some forums)Mad Zientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09303056692561312182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11163695.post-46745643816113163692008-07-08T08:48:00.000-07:002008-07-08T08:48:00.000-07:00A few introductory sentences:Recently Nature featu...A few introductory sentences:<BR/><BR/>Recently Nature featured a unusually mean spirited piece on the finances of PLoS. The tone of the piece generated a predictable backlash in the blogosphere. Another nature contributor then wrote another piece in a more friendly tone, but with mostly the same view of the situation - namely that the "author pays" model doesn't cover the current running costs of PLoS - and in particular that the revenue from the top-tier journals PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine.<BR/><BR/>If you buy my view of the "framing" aspect. Then it is worth noticing that both Nature pieces had the same framing of the problem. And that buzz around the obviously confrontational and distorting first piece helps take focus from the problem framing, and put focus on the more obvious silly points. And generating buzz - even negative buzz is the objective if "framing" is the goal.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00807216800351567752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11163695.post-23451522121588919192008-07-08T08:12:00.000-07:002008-07-08T08:12:00.000-07:00Nice,Anders, if you wrote a few introductory expla...Nice,<BR/>Anders, if you wrote a few introductory explaining sentences on the PLOS-nature issue, I would like to feature your article on my blog. (If that is ok with you). I was thinking about picking up this debate as well, but I am just missing time...<BR/>let me know what you think.<BR/>Cheers<BR/>TobiasTobiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11738218191560755127noreply@blogger.com