<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Before we go too far in denigrating peer-review … let’s note that Smith’s statements are based on biomedical research and his concern, about vested interests,
is obviously focused on commercial for-profit publishers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Dana L. Roth<br>
Caltech 1-32<br>
1200 E. California Blvd. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Pasadena, CA 91125<br>
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540<br>
<a href="mailto:dzrlib@library.caltech.edu">dzrlib@library.caltech.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm">http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Prosser<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, May 30, 2015 1:19 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Re: Unnecessary Services<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am an observer in the peer review debate (and we need to remember that it is a separate debate to the OA debate), but I was struck by an article in the Times Higher last week by Richard Smith, previously editor of the British Medical
Journal: <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/content/the-peer-review-drugs-dont-work">https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/content/the-peer-review-drugs-dont-work</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Basically, he claims that there is no evidence for peer review being a positive force in scholarly communications. He maintains that it is expensive, delays communication, is ineffectual at spotting errors or fraud, prejudiced (especially
against authors from low- and medium-income countries) and anti-innovation.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">He makes a powerful case.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">David<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 30 May 2015, at 05:27, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/14da0a74f200e99b"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#003366">Mike Eisen</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333"> writes:<em><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></em></span><em><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333"><o:p></o:p></span></em></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333">“I believe we should get rid of publishers… the services they provide are either easy to replicate (formatting articles to look pretty) or they currently do
extremely poorly (peer review)… these services are unnecessary… [we should] move to a system where you post things when you want to post them, and that people comment/rate/annotate articles as they read them post publication.”</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333">1. </span><a href="http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1580"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#003366">PLOS</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333"> (like
other publishers) seems to be charging a hefty price for “services that are unnecessary.” ;>)<br>
<br>
2. I agree completely that we should get rid of publishers' </span><a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#4.2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#003366">unnecessary services</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333"> and
their costs. But how to do that, while they are still controlled by publishers and bundled into subscriptions in exchange for access?<br>
<br>
My </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1154-The-Inevitable-Success-of-Transitional-Green-Open-Access.html"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#003366">answer</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333"> is
the one Mike calls “</span><a href="http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1710"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#003366">parasitic</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333">”:
Institutions and funders worldwide mandate Green OA (with the “copy-request” Button to circumvent publisher OA embargoes). The cancellations that that will make possible will force publishers to drop the unnecessary services and their costs and downsize to
Fair-Gold for peer review alone..<br>
<br>
3. But I disagree with Mike about </span><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#003366">peer-review</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333">:
it will remain the sole essential service. And the (oft-voiced) notion that peer-review can be replaced by crowd-sourcing, after “publication” is pure speculation, supported by no evidence that it can ensure quality at least as well as classical peer review,
nor that is it scalable and sustainable</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>