4 ms·

Everything PLoS ONE publishes is good because they are less selective than the top tier journals? Seems an extraordinary claim to make.

jbri 15y ago
No, everything PLoS ONE publishes is good because they reject everything that isn't good. The "less selective" bit manifests itself as a reduced average "impact"/"importance", rather than as a reduced average quality.
- MikeTaylor 15y ago
  Exactly. Paradoxically, this policy has resulted in its getting a rather good impact factor for such a new journal (4.411 for 2010), which happily attracts more high-profile submissions in a virtuous circle. The moral seems clear: other things being equal, freely accessible papers tend to get cited more often than paywalled ones. (Who would have guessed?)
MikeTaylor 15y ago
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Everything PLoS ONE publishes is good not because they are less selective, but although they are less selective. The reason their acceptance criteria don't adversely affect the quality of their published articles is because they do select on quality -- if it's not good, it doesn't go in. But they don't select on impact.
- incremental 15y ago
  Ah, my mistake, I see what you're claiming. However, let me ask a more substantive question. You end by stating:"The real issue is that, whatever selection criteria a journal uses, it should make the resulting papers freely available to the citizens who funded them." The OA model largely involves shifting the cost from the user to the author. This will be paid out of the authors grant money, which in many cases is publicly funded as well. It's not at all clear to me that the end effect is as different as the proponents claim. Reminds me a bit of how Google uses "open" as a competitive weapon to push Android. I wonder if OA publishers are not doing the same to push their business model...
  - aangjie 15y ago
    Good point: But the analogy may/may not hold if we look at actual numbers. My bet is on it not holding and PLOS style coming out better. Unfortunately, i have no idea of the balance sheet/economics of a journal publisher. Is there any such data that can be compared?
  - jules 15y ago
    What exactly are those costs? Reviewers work for free. The only other thing that's needed is a web application and some hosting. These costs are negligible compared to the tax that closed journals are imposing on the scientific world.
    - incremental 15y ago
      I don't really know the details. But consider what open access journals charge per article: http://www.plos.org/journals/pubfees.php http://www.plos.org/journals/pubfees.php This is not cheap, and I'm very glad I didn't need to cover this back when I was publishing papers. If anyone knows a good article on the detailed economics I'd love to see it.
    - alttag 15y ago
      At a premier journal in my field, a "managing editor" is paid for the 25+ hours/wk of work assigning submissions out to the SEs/AEs (based on area of focus), and—more importantly—following up with them on their progress. As I understand, he's also responsible for managing itineraries and speaking engagements for the editor-in-chief, who travels regularly evangelizing (and getting feedback on) the top journal in our field. We have a couple of EICs for major journals at our school, and I suspect (but do not know for certain) that the journal subsidizes their conference attendance too, so that the journal's senior editorial staff can meet in person at least annually. My point is: don't constrain your cost focus to just distribution. There's more to running any organization than initially meets the eye.
      - jules 15y ago
        Is all of that necessary? Would a model like the following work: Have a web site where scientists can submit papers. Other scientists can then review the papers. The reviews are publicly (though optionally anonymously) published along with the papers, and the authors of the paper can submit revised versions of the paper.
SkyMarshal 15y ago
Not less selective, less judgemental.

jbri 15y ago

No, everything PLoS ONE publishes is good because they reject everything that isn't good. The "less selective" bit manifests itself as a reduced average "impact"/"importance", rather than as a reduced average quality.

MikeTaylor 15y ago
Exactly. Paradoxically, this policy has resulted in its getting a rather good impact factor for such a new journal (4.411 for 2010), which happily attracts more high-profile submissions in a virtuous circle. The moral seems clear: other things being equal, freely accessible papers tend to get cited more often than paywalled ones. (Who would have guessed?)

MikeTaylor 15y ago

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Everything PLoS ONE publishes is good not because they are less selective, but although they are less selective. The reason their acceptance criteria don't adversely affect the quality of their published articles is because they do select on quality -- if it's not good, it doesn't go in. But they don't select on impact.

incremental 15y ago
Ah, my mistake, I see what you're claiming. However, let me ask a more substantive question. You end by stating:"The real issue is that, whatever selection criteria a journal uses, it should make the resulting papers freely available to the citizens who funded them." The OA model largely involves shifting the cost from the user to the author. This will be paid out of the authors grant money, which in many cases is publicly funded as well. It's not at all clear to me that the end effect is as different as the proponents claim. Reminds me a bit of how Google uses "open" as a competitive weapon to push Android. I wonder if OA publishers are not doing the same to push their business model...
- aangjie 15y ago
  Good point: But the analogy may/may not hold if we look at actual numbers. My bet is on it not holding and PLOS style coming out better. Unfortunately, i have no idea of the balance sheet/economics of a journal publisher. Is there any such data that can be compared?
- jules 15y ago
  What exactly are those costs? Reviewers work for free. The only other thing that's needed is a web application and some hosting. These costs are negligible compared to the tax that closed journals are imposing on the scientific world.
  - incremental 15y ago
    I don't really know the details. But consider what open access journals charge per article: http://www.plos.org/journals/pubfees.php http://www.plos.org/journals/pubfees.php This is not cheap, and I'm very glad I didn't need to cover this back when I was publishing papers. If anyone knows a good article on the detailed economics I'd love to see it.
  - alttag 15y ago
    At a premier journal in my field, a "managing editor" is paid for the 25+ hours/wk of work assigning submissions out to the SEs/AEs (based on area of focus), and—more importantly—following up with them on their progress. As I understand, he's also responsible for managing itineraries and speaking engagements for the editor-in-chief, who travels regularly evangelizing (and getting feedback on) the top journal in our field. We have a couple of EICs for major journals at our school, and I suspect (but do not know for certain) that the journal subsidizes their conference attendance too, so that the journal's senior editorial staff can meet in person at least annually. My point is: don't constrain your cost focus to just distribution. There's more to running any organization than initially meets the eye.
    - jules 15y ago
      Is all of that necessary? Would a model like the following work: Have a web site where scientists can submit papers. Other scientists can then review the papers. The reviews are publicly (though optionally anonymously) published along with the papers, and the authors of the paper can submit revised versions of the paper.

SkyMarshal 15y ago

Not less selective, less judgemental.