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

Re: Prosser on Davis

[MOD NOTE:  Let's let Joe's message, with its appropriate
concluding advice, be the end of this thread.]


We can play this game forever.  Shall we comment on Heather
Morrison's recent post to the effect that OA is growing many
times faster than traditional publications, without her
mentioning that OA is starting from a much smaller base?  Or
Robert Darnton's comment in the recent issue of the New York
Review (the "Three Jeremiads" piece) that notes price increases
for journals without mentioning the increase in the number of
articles in those journals?  There are countless assertions of
this kind of thing on the other side of the OA debate as well,
where traditional publishers demonstrate that authors "still"
prefer established publications.  The word "still" says it all:
you can feel the fingertips losing their grip on the edge of the

David, I look at numbers for a living and it is rare that one
finds sufficient context to understand just what the numbers are
telling us. Even so, I don't see any reason to engage in ad
hominem remarks. Davis's comments are true or false because his
arguments are true or false.  Whatever biases he has, if he has
any, are not relevant.

Joe Esposito

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:39 PM, David Prosser <david.prosser@rluk.ac.uk> wrote:

> Joe
> 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:
> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/09/22/plos-releases-article-level=
> '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 citations.'
> Shortly followed, when it was announced that PLOS ONE didn't
> have a low impact factor, by:
> 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