1 / 18

“publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review”

“publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review” Eric Dezenhall, PR Consultant to Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron chief, ExxonMobil and, in 2006, to the Association of American Publishers “Media massaging is not the same as intellectual debate.”.

danil
Download Presentation

“publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review” • Eric Dezenhall, PR Consultant to Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron chief, ExxonMobil and, in 2006, to the Association of American Publishers • “Media massaging is not the same as intellectual debate.”

  2. “…the rigor of peer review is independent of the price, medium, and funding model of a journal.  Open Access may threaten the profits and market position of some publishers, but it does not threaten the quality of published science.” Peter Suber, http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html

  3. Actually, OA improves quality • We don’t have to stick with the old models of publishing peer reviewed papers • Right now, quality control ends when a paper is published, and interaction between authors and readers is rare • The internet is a revolutionary technology and Web 2.0 can make the process of scientific publishing better by “harnessing collective intelligence” • -Tim O'Reilly, 2006,Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again

  4. Open access Oct 2003 Oct 2004 Open access 2.0 The Next Generation 2005: Community Journals

  5. Inclusive: all of science and medicine • Objective pre-publication peer-review:focusing on scientific rigor • Post-publication commentary: interactive, dynamic, open Collaborative: In Beta - open source software site being developed with input from users • New ways of assessing quality: eg, user annotations

  6. www.plos.org

  7. www.plos.org

  8. www.plos.org

  9. www.plos.org

  10. www.plos.org

  11. www.plos.org

  12. www.plos.org

  13. Why quality is so important:text mining and open access • The literature is vast • Machines can be used to discover previously unknown information • Open access facilitates this discovery process

  14. Text mining

  15. Jensen, Saric and Bork Nature Reviews Genetics • Feb 2006 www.plos.org

  16. OA will improve the quality of the scientific record • Makes papers more available for scrutiny • Contributes more efficiently to the wider literature • Web 2.0 has the potential to encourage active criticism and correction

More Related