[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Critique of OA metric
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: Critique of OA metric
- From: Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:45:02 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Bill, I really don't see what your beef is with me. I am agnostic as to peer review. There is a difference in the kind of review accorded the PLOS flagship publications and PLOS One. You can come up with any terms that you like to describe that difference, but the difference is very real. Some people care very much about that distinction. My point was not that one form of review was better than another, but that there are in fact two kinds at work here and that that difference is not being acknowledged by many. Joe Esposito On 11/3/09 2:58 PM, "Bill Hooker" <cwhooker@fastmail.fm> wrote: >> I see [PLoS] as a prominently branded organization that is >> moving away from rigorous peer review. > > You keep saying this. I continue to insist that the usage of > "rigorous" here is misleading at best. > > B.
- Prev by Date: Brill introduces Journal Open Access Service: Brill Open
- Next by Date: Re: DeepDyve - 99 cent article rentals
- Previous by thread: RE: Critique of OA metric
- Next by thread: Re: Critique of OA metric
- Index(es):