[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Prosser on Davis


We all have our biases, mine are certainly pro-OA.  It doesn't 
hurt to acknowledge these.

I do read Phil's posts.  My favourite example of bad-news 
spinning is:


'A cynic may read PLoS's move to provide article-level 
indicators a preemptive move in advance of being given its first 
impact factor score for PLoS ONE, a journal with different 
editorial goals than its flagship journals.  Understanding that 
authors are infatuated with journal impact factors, PLoS may be 
positioning itself to counter its first low score for PLoS ONE, 
emphasizing readership, bookmarking, and blogging data over 

Shortly followed, when it was announced that PLOS ONE didn't have 
a low impact factor, by:

PLoS ONE: Is a High Impact Factor a Blessing or a Curse?

As a parlour game, one could try to calculate the exact impact 
factor for PLOS One that was not bad news.


On 20 Dec 2010, at 04:23, Joseph Esposito wrote:
> I don't agree with David Prosser that Phil Davis is intent upon
> turning any metric on Open Access against itself.  Davis is hard
> on all metrics, not just OA.  See his many posts on the Scholarly
> Kitchen which touch on a range of issues where metrics are a
> factor.  These are not all OA discussions.
> I don't happen to agree with Davis's overall perspective (see
> http://bit.ly/fKzObA) in that I am skeptical about the metrics
> game regardless of who plays it.  But I don't see any reason to
> doubt Davis's integrity in these matters.  Let's talk about what
> Davis says, not about him.
> Joe Esposito