RE: OASPA welcomes Phil Davis's exercise

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Joe

How about publishing the same papers in more than one subscription journal
without full acknowledgement of the fact (something that Phil has
highlighted previously)?

Or creating fake journals as marketing tools for large pharmaceutical
companies?

Or the complex relation in general between pharmaceutical companies and
journals?  See Richard Smiths article in the BMJ
(http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7400/1202 - free, but registration
required).  He says, for example:

'Studies have shown that papers published in supplements [paid for by the
drug companies] are of poorer quality than those published in the main
journal.'

Sounds just a bit like a conflict of interest to me.

COPE has a Code of Conduct outlining the need for editorial independence,
free from the financial needs of journals, exactly because such conflicts
exist and always have done.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Esposito
Sent: 16 June 2009 23:23
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: OASPA welcomes Phil Davis's exercise

I quote:

" there are potential conflicts of interest associated with all
publishing models."

Excuse me?  Would you care to document that?  There are of course
*interests* associated with all publishing models, but "conflicts
of interest"?  That is a remarkable statement.

BTW, has it escaped everyone's attention that the Davis and
Anderson exercise is FUNNY?  Isn't one of the lessons here that
we laugh at ourselves and improve our efforts in the fires of
humility?

Joe Esposito