Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: The upside of predatory publishers; why no one replicates; the pain of manuscript submission

with 4 comments

The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction of a state senator’s paper, and an editor busted for citation boosting. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

Written by Ivan Oransky

February 18th, 2017 at 9:30 am

Posted in weekend reads

Comments
  • justtsumguy February 18, 2017 at 1:45 pm

    The Gates Foundation/AAAS deal seems like poor value for money. It will probably come out to ~$10k per article. I’ve never heard of any OA journal charging nearly as much.

    For that matter, I find it sad that the AAAS, dedicated to the “advancement” of science has such a proprietary and exorbitant policy regarding its journals. As a non-profit, they should pursue revenue less forcefully and try to make scientific findings more accessible.

    • Akhlesh February 20, 2017 at 4:56 am

      I completely agree with your second paragraph.

    • Anonymous February 20, 2017 at 8:38 am

      I support the decision of the Gate foundation to go for full Gold OA, but I am not comfortable with this AAAS deal.

      I can’t stop thinking that this surprisingly expensive deal is an attempt to influence the fate of Gate funded manuscripts.

      I don’t believe this kind of agreement is fair since, indeed, both the AAAS and the Gate foundation will want to get what they paid for. Imagine an editor who has to deal with a good-but-not-good-enough manuscript from Gate funded researchers. What if only 2 Gate funded papers have been published in AAAS journals so far? What if there have already been 15? What if the manuscript is from researchers funded by another agency?

      I wonder why the Gate foundation went that way and did not propose instead to cover the OA costs of all projects up to the limit of $100,000. This would also have the advantage of covering all publishers and not only AAAS. Like I already said, the only explanation I see is to favor publication in one of the 6 AAAS journals, which, by accident have high impact factors (which unfortunately are still used to measure the performance of researchers). Once again, the rich get richer and science is not exception.

    • Sylvain Bernès February 20, 2017 at 9:38 am

      Yes, the deal looks like to be another instance of the “Matthew effect”.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.