Hi Serge
The open science list at the Open Knowledge Foundation is always happy to
host discussions on innovation in scholarly publishing
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science (600+ members)
Post-publication peer review and open peer review are well within our
interests.
The Force11 community also has a discussion forum for the future of
research communication (120+ members)
http://www.force11.org/discussions
Jenny
Jenny Molloy
Coordinator, Open Science Working Group
Open Knowledge Foundation
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, BAUIN Serge serge.ba...@cnrs-dir.frwrote:
Jeroen,
Which list? Already existing or starting a new one, let us know, I’m quite
interested, and probably not the only one.
Cheers
Serge
*De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *De la
part de* Bosman, J.M.
*Envoyé :* mardi 10 décembre 2013 21:50
*À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
*Objet :* [GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review
Reform
Stevan,
I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with
more effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to
100% OA. They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop
thinking and hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly communication, but
maybe we should take that discussion to another list.
Best,
Jeroen
Op 10 dec. 2013 om 18:46 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com het
volgende geschreven:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris
chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote:
Same inkling as Jan Laurent. The way fwd for OAP would be some form
of accreditation by repository publisher. One would need to show what
review quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer
review and demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is
what you are doing. The rest can be left to authors, readers and
reviewers...
Ah me! Are we going to go yet another round of this irrelevant loop?
http://j.mp/OAnotPReform
The purpose of OA (it's not OAP, it's OA) is to make peer-reviewed
research freely accessible online to all of its potential users, webwide,
not just to subscribers -- by freeing peer-reviewed research from access
tolls, not by freeing it from peer review (nor by first reforming and
reassigning peer review).
Haven't we already waited long enough?
Stevan Harnad
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: Laurent Romary
Datum:10.12.2013 17:31 (GMT+01:00)
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall
Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List)
Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view.
As an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts
online. As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk.
Let us burn together, Jan.
Laurent
Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com a écrit :
Sally,
May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded
heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of
pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open
repositories. PPPR is the one thing that keeps the whole publishing system
standing, and expensive – in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort
expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those.
Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may
have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the
internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point
to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to
public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been
published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater
than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status,
however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more
examples.
My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too
easily used as an excuse to absolve scientists – and science journalists –
from applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal.
Doing away with PPPR will do little damage – if any at all – to science,
but removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific community
a hell of a lot of money.
The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn for
that phrase), so I won't hold my breath.
Jan Velterop
On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
wrote:
At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let
me say that – whatever ithe failings of his article – I thank Jeffrey Beall
for raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed.
I would put them under two general headings:
1
