Re: Growth for STM publishers in 2008

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

If PLOS One does not ask its reviewers to do the impossible, does 
that imply that the PLOS flagship journals do in fact ask its 
reviewers to do the impossible?

Joe Esposito

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Bill Hooker <cwhooker@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> PLOS, on the other hand, has already demonstrated one way to 
>> lower costs through its PLOS One program. The reduction in 
>> cost derives from adopting a policy of less rigorous peer 
>> review.
>
> PLoS ONE peer review is no whit less *scientifically* rigorous 
> than that imposed by any other journal.  The only difference is 
> that PLoS ONE does not ask reviewers to make impossible guesses 
> as to what judgement history is likely to pass on a given 
> paper. I would hesitate to describe the addition of such 
> guesswork to the review process as an increase in rigor.
>
> So far as costs are concerned -- whatever the cost of 
> prognostications about likely importance, I personally would 
> rather the publishers skip that step and pass on the savings.
>
> If, that is, there are savings.  How exactly does the PLoS ONE 
> model of peer review result in lower costs?
>
> B.

-- 
Joe Esposito

--001636eee1447b53d904769dc011
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If PLOS One does not ask its reviewers to do the impossible, does that impl=
y that the PLOS flagship journals do in fact ask its reviewers to do the im=
possible? =A0<div><br></div><div>Joe Esposito<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote">
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Bill Hooker <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:cwhooker@fastmail.fm";>cwhooker@fastmail.fm</a>&gt;</span> wrote:=
<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">&gt; PLOS, on the other hand, has already demonstrated on=
e way to<br>
&gt; lower costs through its PLOS One program. The reduction in cost<br>
&gt; derives from adopting a policy of less rigorous peer review.<br>
<br>
</div>PLoS ONE peer review is no whit less *scientifically* rigorous<br>
than that imposed by any other journal. =A0The only difference is<br>
that PLoS ONE does not ask reviewers to make impossible guesses<br>
as to what judgement history is likely to pass on a given paper.<br>
I would hesitate to describe the addition of such guesswork to<br>
the review process as an increase in rigor.<br>
<br>
So far as costs are concerned -- whatever the cost of<br>
prognostications about likely importance, I personally would<br>
rather the publishers skip that step and pass on the savings.<br>
<br>
If, that is, there are savings. =A0How exactly does the PLoS ONE<br>
model of peer review result in lower costs?<br>
<font color=3D"#888888"><br>
B.<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Joe Esposito<br>
</div>

--001636eee1447b53d904769dc011--