tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post1056809461279943928..comments2018-01-21T03:50:50.812-06:00Comments on NeuroDojo: Open access or vanity press, the Science “sting” editionZen Faulkeshttps://plus.google.com/109737898442105024111noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-28264522836528998552013-10-11T05:34:41.543-05:002013-10-11T05:34:41.543-05:00Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A...Harnad, S. (2007) <a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/" rel="nofollow">The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition</a>. In: Anna Gacs. <em>The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age</em>. L&#39;Harmattan. 99-106. <br /><br /><br />________ (2010) <a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/" rel="nofollow">No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed</a>.<em> D-Lib Magazine</em> 16 (7/8). <br /><br />________ (2013) <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1059-.html" rel="nofollow">The Science Peer-Review &quot;Sting&quot;: Where the Fault Lies</a>. <em>Open Access Archivangelism</em> 1059.Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-6891847090290785582013-10-11T05:33:12.583-05:002013-10-11T05:33:12.583-05:00Pre-Green Fool&#39;s-Gold and Post-Green Fair-Gold...<b>Pre-Green Fool&#39;s-Gold and Post-Green Fair-Gold OA</b><br /><br />I would be surprised if there were no subscription journlals that accepted the <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2013/10/live-chat-exploring-wild-west-open-access" rel="nofollow">Bohannon sting paper</a> for publication too. But I would be even more surprised if the same proportion of field-, age-, size- and impact-factor-matched subscription journals accepted it as did the pay-to-publish OA journals (&quot;Gold OA&quot;). <br /><br />Subscription journals have to maintain enough of an appearance of peer review to sustain their subscriptions. Pay-to-publish Gold OA journals just have to maintain enough of an appearance of peer review to attract authors (and maybe pay-to-publish is enough to attract many authors in our publish-or-perish world without even the appearance of peer review, especially along with the fashionable allure -- or excuse -- of the journal&#39;s being OA).<br /><br />This problem would not be remedied by just lowering Gold OA journal publication fees. Nor is it a systemic problem of peer review. It is a problem of peer review for Gold OA journals at a time when there is still far too little OA and most journals are still subscription journals, most authors are still confused about OA, many think that OA means Gold OA journals, and, most important, there are not yet enough effective mandates from research funders and institutions that require authors to make their papers OA by depositing them in their institutional OA repositories (&quot;Green OA&quot;) regardless of where they were published. <br /><br />If it were mandatory to make all papers Green OA, authors would simply deposit their peer-reviewed final drafts in their institutional OA repositories, free for all, immediately upon acceptance for publication. They would not have to pay to publish in Gold OA journals. Once all journal articles were being made Green OA in this way, institutions would cancel all their journal subscriptions, which would in turn force all journals to cut costs and convert to Gold OA publishing at a much lower fee than is being charged now by OA journals: post-Green Fair Gold instead of today&#39;s pre-Green Fool&#39;s Gold. <br /><br />But, most important, the only remaining service that journals (all of them having become Gold OA) would be performing then, post-Green, would be peer review. All access-provision and archiving would be done by the Green OA repositories (so not more print or PDF editions). And for just peer review, journals would no longer be charging for publishing (which would then just amount to a tag certifying that the article had been accepted by journal J): they would be charging for the peer review. <br /><br />And each round of peer review (which peers do for free, by the way, so the only real cost is the editor who evaluates the submission, picks the referees, and adjudicates the referee reports, plus the referee tracking and communication software) would be paid for on a &quot;no-fault&quot; basis, per round of peer review, whether the outcome was acceptance, rejection, or revision and resubmission for another (paid) round of peer review.<br /><br />Unlike with today&#39;s Fool&#39;s Gold junk journals that were caught by Bohannon&#39;s sting, not only will no-fault post-Green, Fair-Gold peer-review remove any incentive to accept lower quality papers (and thereby reduce the reputation of the journal) -- because the journal is paid in any case -- but it will help make Fair-Gold OA costs even lower, per round of peer review, because it will not wrap the costs of the rejected or multiply revised and re-refereed papers into the cost of each accepted paper, as they do now.<br /><br />So post-Green Fair Gold will not only reduce costs but it will raise peer-review standards.<br /><br />None of this is possible, however, unless Green OA is effectively mandated by all institutions and funders first.Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-17420283227172783542013-10-09T15:07:13.734-05:002013-10-09T15:07:13.734-05:00For me it is more important to find out few source...For me it is more important to find out few sources of light in the ocean of darkness. People are more busy to find out the weakness of the study, how this study should have been conducted, etc. Some peoples are considering this as a ‘designer study to produce some designed baby’, etc. And I AGREE to all of them. Yes all of them are true. But in this huge quarrel and cacophony are we not neglecting some orphan babies born from this study (yes they born accidentally and not designed or expected to be born: as most of the large inventions are accidentally happened)?<br /><br />I have made some childish analysis with the raw-data of the report of John Bohannon.<br /><br />Bohannon used very few words for praising or highlighting the journals/publishers who successfully passed the test. He only mentioned about PlOS One and Hindawi, who are already accepted by academicians for their high reputation. At least I expected that Bohannon will include a table to highlight the journals/publishers, who passed test. I spent very little time to analyze the data. Surprisingly I found some errors made by Bohannon to rightly indicate the category of publishers (DOAJ / Beall). I have indicated some errors and I could not complete the cross-checking of all 304 publishers/journal. Bohannon used DOAJ/Beall as his main category of selecting the journals. But error in properly showing this category-data, may indicate that he spent more time in collecting the raw data, than analyzing the data or curating the data.<br /><br />I found more members of Beall’s list is present in Bohannon’s study. But Bohannon did not report this fact.<br /><br />Table 1: List of 20 journals/publishers, who Rejected the paper after substantial review (May be considered white-listed journal/publisher)<br />Table 2: List of 8 journals/publishers, who Rejected the paper after superficial review (May be considered white-listed-borderline journal/publisher)<br />Table 3: List of 16 journals/publishers, who Accepted the paper after substantial review (May be considered blacklisted-borderline journal/publisher)<br />Table 4: List of journals/publishers, who Accepted the paper superficial/NO review (May be considered confirmed blacklisted journal/publisher)<br />Table 5: List of journals/publishers, who Rejected the paper but no review details recorded (Labeling of this journal/publisher is avoided)<br /><br />Link to my post: http://wp.me/p3eOrO-Z<br /><br /><br />Akbar Khan<br />IndiaA Khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03518366948781001840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-22000113724814977562013-10-09T15:06:37.131-05:002013-10-09T15:06:37.131-05:00For me it is more important to find out few source...For me it is more important to find out few sources of light in the ocean of darkness. People are more busy to find out the weakness of the study, how this study should have been conducted, etc. Some peoples are considering this as a ‘designer study to produce some designed baby’, etc. And I AGREE to all of them. Yes all of them are true. But in this huge quarrel and cacophony are we not neglecting some orphan babies born from this study (yes they born accidentally and not designed or expected to be born: as most of the large inventions are accidentally happened)?<br /><br />I have made some childish analysis with the raw-data of the report of John Bohannon.<br /><br />Bohannon used very few words for praising or highlighting the journals/publishers who successfully passed the test. He only mentioned about PlOS One and Hindawi, who are already accepted by academicians for their high reputation. At least I expected that Bohannon will include a table to highlight the journals/publishers, who passed test. I spent very little time to analyze the data. Surprisingly I found some errors made by Bohannon to rightly indicate the category of publishers (DOAJ / Beall). I have indicated some errors and I could not complete the cross-checking of all 304 publishers/journal. Bohannon used DOAJ/Beall as his main category of selecting the journals. But error in properly showing this category-data, may indicate that he spent more time in collecting the raw data, than analyzing the data or curating the data.<br /><br />I found more members of Beall’s list is present in Bohannon’s study. But Bohannon did not report this fact.<br /><br />Table 1: List of 20 journals/publishers, who Rejected the paper after substantial review (May be considered white-listed journal/publisher)<br />Table 2: List of 8 journals/publishers, who Rejected the paper after superficial review (May be considered white-listed-borderline journal/publisher)<br />Table 3: List of 16 journals/publishers, who Accepted the paper after substantial review (May be considered blacklisted-borderline journal/publisher)<br />Table 4: List of journals/publishers, who Accepted the paper superficial/NO review (May be considered confirmed blacklisted journal/publisher)<br />Table 5: List of journals/publishers, who Rejected the paper but no review details recorded (Labeling of this journal/publisher is avoided)<br /><br />Link to my post: http://wp.me/p3eOrO-Z<br /><br /><br />Akbar Khan<br />IndiaA Khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03518366948781001840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-19649319142926143092013-10-04T09:53:18.750-05:002013-10-04T09:53:18.750-05:00There have been a few &quot;stings&quot; where peo...There have been a few &quot;stings&quot; where people have submitted the text of highly regarded past papers to various journals, only to have them rejected, generally without the referee/ editor noticing that it&#39;s the same text as a famous experiment. Those are usually cited as examples of the obliviousness of editors/ referees, but might speak somewhat to the &quot;false rejection&quot; issue.Chad Orzelhttp://scienceblogs.com/principles/noreply@blogger.com
http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/feeds/1056809461279943928/comments/default
neurodojo.blogspot.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-05
20188
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2ZJMG44PX2PCDI72F6HKPWZP3OWJBJF3
<urn:uuid:61b9d667-46e1-457c-8bac-ad72f542a0c4>
2018-01-21T12:28:34Z
216.58.218.225
application/atom+xml
sha1:ILYKG5IKQJERSEXLLMDIUQUFAL6ZCACQ
<urn:uuid:882ef203-1f1e-4d1b-bf99-5d64480ead64>
http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/feeds/1056809461279943928/comments/default
response
<urn:uuid:ff94f4e3-150d-44aa-97c3-ca3409bdde8f>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-233-143-46.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-05
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf