Nature now to rely on “bulk, cheap publishing of lower quality papers to subsidize its handful of high-quality flagship journals”?

January 7, 2011

Remember when Nature offered us a completely objective and unbiased review of PLoS?

Public Library of Science (PLoS), the poster child of the open-access publishing movement, is following an haute couture model of science publishing — relying on bulk, cheap publishing of lower quality papers to subsidize its handful of high-quality flagship journals.

drdrA alerts us to the fact that Nature Publishing Group seems to have changed their minds about dirty, gutter, bulk publication of lower quality papers.

Nature Scientific Reports

Commentary from Martin Fenner over at PLoS blogs and from Bjorn Brembs.
This is why NPG cracks me up. Totally unembarrassed to say whatever, whenever no matter how inconsistent with their supposed other goals (see goals for robust online discussion of published papers) or with their prior statements or with their other actions (see hand wringing about Impact Factors). Just like a good business should, I suppose.

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Nature now to rely on “bulk, cheap publishing of lower quality papers to subsidize its handful of high-quality flagship journals”?”

  1. becca Says:

    Dude, when the republican party could learn a thing or two from you about totally shameless inconsistency, you’re epic. Just epic.

    Like

  2. DrugMonkey Says:

    ahh, but the Republican party is not a business becca. …um, right?

    Like


  3. This was pointed out and Grace Baynes’ response was that the quote came from editors who have complete independence from the business side. If that’s the case, do you suppose they’re pissed that their business has made this announcement? heh.

    Like

  4. bill Says:

    The conversation Christina mentions is here:
    http://friendfeed.com/noahgray/35060406/new-npg-open-access-pub-for-2011-scientific
    I pointed out the inadequacy of the response, and Noah got all put-upon, the poor dear. I don’t see why it’s so hard to just say “yeah, Declan fucked that one up”. But the fact that they won’t or can’t makes me decidely leery of doing business with NPG, which is why I’m not joining in the “hooray, more OA” cheers.

    Like

  5. DrugMonkey Says:

    Nice one bill. Thanks for alerting us to that set of exchanges.

    Like

  6. DrugMonkey Says:

    Nice one bill. Thanks for alerting us to that set of exchanges.

    Like

  7. Funky Fresh Says:

    Nature kind of reminds me of a particular blog network I know. I don’t want to name names, but the rhyme with “Schmab Laces.”

    Like


  8. Now if you can just standardize publication fees as a line items on grants. Some of the DoD grants I have been on did not give a damn dime for publication fees and the department was left to scrounge up the money. Open Access is going to get pricey but oh well its for the best. So hooray Open Access, hooray PLoS, and fuck NPG.

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: