Re: Critique of OA metric

["Bill Hooker" <cwhooker@fastmail.fm>]

> Readers are coming to PLOS One (presumably authors, too) 
> thinking they are getting the editorial rigor of the PLOS 
> flagships, but they aren't.

Yes, they are: the only thing they are not getting is the 
guesswork about the eventual scientific utility/impact of the 
work.

We can agree to disagree about the accuracy and value of this 
subjective assessment, but I think it misleading to lump the 
"quality" filter and the validity filter together under the one 
rubric of "editorial rigor".

(A disclaimer seems to be warranted by now: PLoS has never paid 
me a penny, but I do have friends who work there.)

B.