Re: Critique of OA metric

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Well, having said that you can come up with any terms you like, I 
now find myself pulling back at least from one of your 
suggestions.  If by "quality filter" you mean the traditional 
editorial process, then I must say that, no, that's now what 
editors do at all.  It would be good if some of the editors who 
mostly lurk on this list would speak up.  Are you a quality 
filter?

I read your post while sitting in a restaurant.  When you look 
over a menu, you make some determinations as to what to order. 
We all know that the real creative work takes place in the 
kitchen (analogy:  chef equals author), but there is something to 
be said for the act of making certain determinations, and also 
for seeing how one choice "fits" with another.  I don't think 
that our representative diner would think of him or herself as a 
quality filter. Choosing is a creative act.

It is understandable that authors should resent editors, since 
editors sit in judgment over them.  This is as it should be, and 
how it is.

Joe Esposito


On 11/5/09 4:24 PM, "Bill Hooker" <cwhooker@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> There is a difference in the kind of review accorded the PLOS 
>> flagship publications and PLOS One.
>
> I agree; but that difference has nothing to do with scientific 
> validity -- which is, to my mind, what is implied by saying 
> that one is less rigorous than the other.
>
>> You can come up with any terms that you like to describe that 
>> difference
>
> In an earlier email I came up with "quality filter" and 
> "validity filter"; they don't exactly trip off the tongue, I 
> admit, but they have the virtue of not conflating two very 
> different aspects of the review process.
>
> I agree with you that this is not a trivial issue, so it is 
> worth taking the time to find and use precise language when 
> discussing it.
>
> Bill