[GOAL] Re: GOAL] Re: Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform

[Michael Eisen]

Open access and peer review reform are not necessarily related in that you
can have OA without peer review changes (e.g. PLOS Biology) and have peer
review changes without open access. However, in practical terms it makes
sense to discuss them both in the same place because they are both
inhibited by the extreme stasis in conventional publishing, and because
most of the efforts to innovate in peer review are coming from open access
journals (e.g. F1000 Research).

I also find it highly ironic that Jeffrey Beall would complain about tone
after he just published an article that went to great lengths to slander
everyone ever connected with the open access movement.




On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 11 December 2013 20:13, Bosman, J.M. <j.bosman at uu.nl> wrote:
>
>>  Let me be clear on this. My suggestion to move the discussion on peer
>> review to another list has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with
>> anyone. It has to do with the degree to which peer review is related to
>> Open Access. Even with zero open access peer review would reach its limits
>> and needs to change. I think peer review discussions are more fruitful in a
>> forum that focusses on innnovations in scholarly communication rather than
>> just open access, although of course some lines that converge and
>> intersect.
>>
>
> Well, at the risk of putting words into the mouths of others, I find it
> hard to believe that there is anyone - even advocates of "traditional"
> publishing - who thinks it is a good idea to deny access to the outputs of
> quality research.
>
> Two highly substantive issues about open access are cost and credibility.
> Closed access publishing is not immune to the potential flaws in peer
> review, but open access can provide more opportunity and incentive to
> leverage flawed peer review.
>
> Whilst the major [open access] publishers have maintained a commitment to
> "honest" peer review, the same can't be said of every operating publisher.
>
> This list may not be the appropriate place for an in-depth discussion
> about changing the peer review process. But assuring the credibility of
> open access - in particular open access publishing - is inextricably linked
> to peer review, and how it is conducted. And a discussion of any changes
> would also impact on how much open access [publishing] costs, and how it is
> funded.
>
> On that basis, it would be impractical to consider peer review as off
> topic for an open access list - but any discussion would also need to
> recognise that there is a larger audience that needs to be involved (but
> then that is true of any list that people choose to subscribe to,
> regardless of it's scope).
>
> G
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131212/6d124a19/attachment.html