Yeah, for biology PLoS One is pretty well-respected. Obviously, introducing any new journal (open or not) is going to have challenges with impact and quality. I think that people attacking the lower-quality ones are mistaking openness for the fault, where really it's just that the journal isn't popular enough to have a high impact (yet?).
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:16 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > That "dumping ground" quote made me lol. Glad you take inspiration from > PLoS, Parker, I'm there with you. Adi, did that feedback go through some > reputable, peer-reviewed process? ;) > > PLoS One may not be the most prestigious journal but old feedback from some > UC librarians suggested to me it is a solid journal. > > In fact I contend that the PLoS journals arent even that radical (read: > scary, non-scientific)! It is the same peer-review model, same closed up > scientific process, same busted reputation engine. > > However, these are big issues and PLoS need not necessarily take them on. I > appreciate PLoS for what they have done to reformulate access, revenue, and > business models for publishing science research. This may be what makes them > worthy of recognition. > > - Matt > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Parker Higgins" <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, Sep 28, 2010 11:49 pm > Subject: [FC-discuss] Open Source Projects featured on TreeHugger > To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in > particular" <[email protected]> > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Adi Kamdar <[email protected]> wrote > > > > > > It's interesting how they put PLoS ONE in there, though, which most > > researchers I've talked to tend to regard as the "dumping ground for bad > > science," or simply an outlet for scientific publications that > researchers > > know won't make it into more esteemed journals. > > > > > Yikes. I wonder if that's grounded in fact or just FUD? Hearing about > PLoS's > (partially successful) struggle to get scientists to use open access > journals was actually what first got me passionate about free culture > issues; that people would opt for the "esteemed" journals instead of the > newer but more accessible one in cases that were literally life or death > for > many people struck me as something that I needed to get involved with. > > I can't speak too much to PLoS ONE's credibility, but it is a peer reviewed > journal and not quite a "dumping ground." Some of PLoS's other journals, > like PLoS Biology, are more obviously successful: in 2007 that journal had > the highest impact factor of any ISI-categorized "Biology" journal. > > > > > -Adi > > > > > Parker > > -- > parker higgins > berlin, germany > > http://parkerhiggins.net > > gmail / gchat: [email protected] > twitter / identi.ca: @thisisparker > skype: thisisparker > > please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a > proprietary > platform > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > > -- Alec Story Cornell University Biological Sciences, Computer Science 2012
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
