4 ms·
While I very much abhor the practices of Elsevier, one has to be really careful how one acts to push back. Even without getting into the result that not interac
by grigjd3 10y ago
While I very much abhor the practices of Elsevier, one has to be really careful how one acts to push back. Even without getting into the result that not interacting with Elsevier has on careers in the biomedical sciences, it's easy to fall into traps with other publishing firms. For instance, PlosOne is a pay-to-publish "alternative". However, the motivations here are backwards. PlosOne makes money for each accepted publication and thus limits their motivation to do serious peer review. I'm not saying that means PlosOne articles are necessarily bad, the very nature of their publishing model suggests something could be wrong - and it's pretty hard to get recognition for publications through them. I personally prefer when the professional organizations, like APS, handle their own mainstream of publishing. The Phys Rev journals have a strong motivation to promote the best research, because it speaks well of the industry overall, but because they are beholden to their membership, they are less likely to promote the kind of unethical practices used by Elsevier.
- bumblebeard 10y ago> Even without getting into the result that not interacting with Elsevier has on careers in the biomedical sciences... The author of the article addresses this concern in the "What you can do" section. He says he's noticed no ill effects from avoiding Elsevier journals and that most people are likely to have the same experience. As for PLOS ONE's business model, it's possible that it sets up some perverse incentives, but fortunately there are choices other than PLOS ONE if this model bothers you. If it really is impossible for you to avoid publishing in an Elsevier journal, that's fine, but anybody who can avoid it should for the reasons presented in this article.
- rspeer 10y agoWhat are the other choices? PLOS ONE is the only open-access journal I know of that has a good reputation, isn't limited to a narrow field, and isn't just a trash-heap of unpublishable nonsense. This reputation, at least, is an incentive for them to do good peer review.
- sndean 10y agoScientific Reports (http://www.nature.com/srep/ http://www.nature.com/srep/) is pretty broad and is open-access. Some really good articles have been published there over the past few years.
- grigjd3 10y agoBroad is part of the problem. It's very difficult to get qualified reviewers when you haven't narrowed the scope. One of the primary problems with PLOS ONE is that it exasperates problems already seen in other journals that cover too much. Why would you expect a specialist in awake single neuron experiments to be able to review and MRI study? Sure, there are some really good people out there, but for the most part, such reviews are going to be arbitrary.
- grigjd3 10y agoAgain, journals run by professional groups are a terrific way to avoid both the bad behaviour of Elsevier and the apparent pay to play that shows up with PLOS ONE.
- grigjd3 10y agoWell, I explicitly endorse the APS model, so there you go.