On 19 Feb 2010, at 05:00, Dana Roth wrote:
The January 25 issue of Chemistry Industry (issue 2, 2010) has a short
article on research fraud which includes a sidebar on the situation in China
(see below). This suggests that, contrary to Heather Morrison's suggestion,
scholar led open
Dana Roth wrote :
This [concerns about research fraud in China] suggests that, contrary to
Heather Morrison's suggestion,
scholar led open access publishing is not a viable solution.
I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow the argument. Could Ms Roth
explain how one makes the link between, on
Carr
Sent: 19 February 2010 10:13
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Facing up to fraud - China's exponential research growth could
fuel fraud
On 19 Feb 2010, at 05:00, Dana Roth wrote:
The January 25 issue of Chemistry Industry (issue 2, 2010) has
...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf
Of Leslie Carr
Sent: 19 February 2010 10:13
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Facing up to fraud - China's exponential research growth could
fuel fraud
On 19 Feb 2010, at 05:00, Dana Roth wrote:
The January 25 issue of Chemistry
-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Facing up to fraud - China's exponential research growth
could fuel fraud
While that may be true ... isn't most of the TA fraud in the medical field ...
which occurs because long range studies can't reasonably be reproducable
This has to be one of the most telling (and funniest) non sequitur I have ever
read. A textbook example if there ever were one. Why would Open Access (which is
about access, not peer review) lead to sloppy peer review? When an OA journals
such as PLOS biology with an impact factor hovering over 12
On 18-Feb-10, at 9:00 PM, Dana Roth wrote:
The January 25 issue of Chemistry Industry (issue 2, 2010) has a
short article on research fraud which includes a sidebar on the
situation in China (see below). This suggests that, contrary to
Heather Morrison's suggestion, scholar led open access
The January 25 issue of Chemistry Industry (issue 2, 2010) has a short
article on research fraud which includes a sidebar on the situation in China
(see below). This suggests that, contrary to Heather Morrison's suggestion,
scholar led open access publishing is not a viable solution. Without
