Weekend reads, part 2: Pressure to publish limits innovation; Frontiers a predatory publisher?

booksLots of good reads elsewhere this week. As promised yesterday, here’s part 2:

For Open Access Week:

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, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post. Click here to review our Comments Policy.

4 thoughts on “Weekend reads, part 2: Pressure to publish limits innovation; Frontiers a predatory publisher?”

  1. I have for several years now been critical of the Beall list of “predatory” journals, simply because the list is not based on quantifiable parameters. Some of those concerns I have voiced previously at RW:

    I have previously suggested a quantifiable system to measure “predation” in journals, the Predatory Score:

    Despite the pit-falls and the weaknesses/flaws of those lists, Beall’s blog is an important resource to raise awareness of issues in science publishing. What I think would be important would be to convince Beall to quantify his lists and explain exactly why they have been included there, using actual values rather than random reports and “intuition”. Needless to say that just recently I invited Beall to explain the precise reasons why Oncotarget was listed on his lists:

    Finally, regarding Frontiers, my experience with Frontiers in Plant Science has overall been good in terms of strict peer review, but I have experienced some minor issues with manuscript handling.

  2. I used to really look forward to the weekly round-up. Now, I just feel overwhelmed.

    Has any thought been giving to publishing more frequent updates, organizing links by 3-5 major topics, or — even better — just focusing on the very, very best articles?

    1. Thanks very much for the suggestions. We know that many readers enjoy Weekend Reads, and are always looking for ways to make it more user-friendly.

      In fact, breaking this week’s into two installments was an attempt to publish more frequent updates. We have also considered a daily update with half a dozen items each day, but also know that we’re already sending a lot of emails, given our volume. We tend to highlight the most interesting pieces at the top, in a nod to focusing on the very best. And organizing reads is a good idea, one that Ed Yong, whose weekly linkfest is one of the major inspirations for Weekend Reads, does very well. We’ll consider this, too. Thanks again.

      1. Thank you for your prompt reply. As a weekly digest subscriber, until you mentioned it I had not realized this weeks links had been published across two days.

        Thank you for considering my suggestions and for all of the great work you do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.