Ivan Oransky von Retraction Watch im Webchat mit Richard van Noorden von Nature: Klick
Wiley und Elsevier beantworten Fragen zu Open Access auf The Conversation :
Klick
Beides gleichermaßen harmlos wie enttäuschend.
Die Fragen an einen Mitarbeiter von Nature beleuchten allenfalls Allgemeinplätze zu Retractions. Und wirken reichlich zahnlos, bedenkt man Kommentare wie sie noch letzte Woche zum Verhalten der Nature Publishing Group auf Retraction Watch zu lesen waren. Zwei Beispiele (von hier bzw hier):
[…]It took 3 rounds of review and more than a year, just to get a 2 page correspondence accepted for publication. The page limit was strictly enforced for us (but not for the original authors’ response to our letter). During the review process for the 2nd revision, some 3 months after receiving the comments from 4 separate reviewers, and almost ready to resubmit, the editor forwarded a set of late reviews from a 5th reviewer and asked us to address them. Throughout the review process, the original authors were given the last word on every count, and we essentally did not know their final response until we saw it in print.[…]
Bottom line… you can have alll the heavy hitters on your side, but if you challenge something in a NPG journal, you will have a fight to even get in the door, followed by a pitched battle to get something published, with every possible curve-ball thrown at you during the review and revision process. NPG does not like it when you find mistakes that should have been found in peer review. The phrase “it’s in Nature so it must be true” was never more appropriate.
[…]Nature has been presented massive, overwhelming evidence of a fraudulent crystal structure in their pages (for example), and this paper is still not retracted, nor is there an “Editorial Expression of Concern”- there was a “Brief Communications Arising” allowed that itself was relatively neutered (yet it still states that the structure in question does not obey physical laws). This paper is from 2006.[…]
The Conversation ist eine Seite die sich selbst mit
The Conversation is an independent source of information, analysis and commentary from the university and research sector — written by acknowledged experts and delivered directly to the public.
beschreibt. Leider wird in der Auseinandersetzung mit den Verlagen kaum deutlich, das Experten am Werk sind – außer natürlich in den PR-Abteilungen bei Elsevier und Wiley, denn direkt von dort stammen vermutlich die Äußerungen der Verlage. Interessant wäre z.B. mal eine Antwort auf Kritik an den hybriden Open-Access-Modellen, Stichwort doppelte Finanzierung. Chance vertan.
KnackBockBlog 