RE: OASPA welcomes Phil Davis's exercise

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

That's not a conflict of interest, David.  That's fraud.

Joe Esposito

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 1:13 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: OASPA welcomes Phil Davis's exercise

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