4 ms·

"As written, Plan S would bar researchers from publishing in 85% of journals, including influential titles such as Nature and Science." - Nature Conflict of in

by Fordec 8y ago

"As written, Plan S would bar researchers from publishing in 85% of journals, including influential titles such as Nature and Science." - Nature Conflict of interest with this reporting much?

apetresc 8y ago
Considering that the article is clearly sympathetic to the idea, I don't really understand how you think this conflict of interest is manifesting itself.
GuB-42 8y ago
There is an obvious conflict of interest. However I see nothing wrong with the article. What is written here is a fact. 85% of journals don't match the criteria for Plan S and Nature and Science are definitely influential. Arguments of both sides are presented, not too much sensationalism, that's better journalism than many so called "independent" newspapers.
- dwheeler 8y ago
  Oh, the text is biased. E.g., the word "radical" is not emotion free, it is clearly selected to suggest that this is a bad idea. They also emphasize strongly the number of journals that do not meet this criteria, without noting that changes are absolutely possible. The percentage is so small because of the strong armed resistance of organizations like theirs. We should not expect that an organization used to free money would be happy about losing their exclusive access to hard work that was paid for by the public.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > E.g., the word "radical" is not emotion free, it is clearly selected to suggest that this is a bad idea. No, it's clearly chosen to suggest it is an extreme break from the status quo practice.
sohkamyung 8y ago
On occasion in its news articles, Nature News has stated that it is editorially independent from the rest of Nature. I don't have a link to that statement, unfortunately, but I have seen it when Nature News has to discuss items that impact Nature publications. Edit: here's a statement from a 2016 article: Nature’s news and comment team is editorially independent of the publisher’s research editorial teams [1] [1] https://www.nature.com/news/open-peer-review-finds-more-takers-1.20969 https://www.nature.com/news/open-peer-review-finds-more-take...
- l9k 8y ago
  It's also directly stated in the article under the "Publisher concerns"paragraph": Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its publisher
  - sohkamyung 8y ago
    I missed that. Thanks for pointing that out.

by Fordec 8y ago

"As written, Plan S would bar researchers from publishing in 85% of journals, including influential titles such as Nature and Science." - Nature Conflict of interest with this reporting much?

apetresc 8y ago

Considering that the article is clearly sympathetic to the idea, I don't really understand how you think this conflict of interest is manifesting itself.

GuB-42 8y ago

There is an obvious conflict of interest. However I see nothing wrong with the article. What is written here is a fact. 85% of journals don't match the criteria for Plan S and Nature and Science are definitely influential. Arguments of both sides are presented, not too much sensationalism, that's better journalism than many so called "independent" newspapers.

dwheeler 8y ago
Oh, the text is biased. E.g., the word "radical" is not emotion free, it is clearly selected to suggest that this is a bad idea. They also emphasize strongly the number of journals that do not meet this criteria, without noting that changes are absolutely possible. The percentage is so small because of the strong armed resistance of organizations like theirs. We should not expect that an organization used to free money would be happy about losing their exclusive access to hard work that was paid for by the public.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > E.g., the word "radical" is not emotion free, it is clearly selected to suggest that this is a bad idea. No, it's clearly chosen to suggest it is an extreme break from the status quo practice.

sohkamyung 8y ago

On occasion in its news articles, Nature News has stated that it is editorially independent from the rest of Nature. I don't have a link to that statement, unfortunately, but I have seen it when Nature News has to discuss items that impact Nature publications. Edit: here's a statement from a 2016 article: Nature’s news and comment team is editorially independent of the publisher’s research editorial teams [1] [1] https://www.nature.com/news/open-peer-review-finds-more-takers-1.20969 https://www.nature.com/news/open-peer-review-finds-more-take...

l9k 8y ago
It's also directly stated in the article under the "Publisher concerns"paragraph": Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its publisher
- sohkamyung 8y ago
  I missed that. Thanks for pointing that out.