Science Commons’ John Wilbanks on the Declan Butler article
Asked for a brief note on the whole Nature vs. PLoS issue, John Wilbanks (Science Commons) wrote a couple paragraphs where I’d like to highlight some instances:
The tone of the article is pretty damning, but if you read it with non-sensitized eyes it’s not as bad as everyone seems to think. I showed it to non scientists and didn’t get the take the blogosphere did.
Considering that most (all) reactions came from science related bloggers, the resulting throughput of comments and blog posts was surely expected. After all, the article was published in a scientific magazine.
PLoS is simply going through the natural progression of a startup. It has solved the first puzzle: making something people want, which is open access journals. In so doing it has answered the question of whether or not a completely open journal can consistently produce high quality peer reviewed science. That answer, by the by, is hell yes.
I like the idea of PLoS as a startup that is keeping to it’s original goal while trying to work out the kinks regarding the open-access publishing model. And I agree, they have produced high quality peer reviewed science.
Read John Wilbanks’ post at his Nature Network.
Related posts:
- Creative Commons donor map
- Semantic Science Commons makes FasterCures top list
- PLoS ONE hits 500!
- Cloning bad! SCNT good!
- A little belief can go a long way…
On FriendFeed, this post was liked by 0 people and commented on 0 times show
Leave a comment