tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5940279237266006532..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Nature Opens Mouth—Inserts FootLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17145436172243312462010-06-14T12:50:21.199-04:002010-06-14T12:50:21.199-04:00Why aren't they *dropping* prices in the econo...<i>Why aren't they *dropping* prices in the economic climate, especially for a good that has a near zero marginal cost?</i><br /><br />You're kidding right? They are raising prices <b>because the can</b>. It's the American way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7616157290436354152010-06-14T12:03:29.623-04:002010-06-14T12:03:29.623-04:00Geez, A. Vargas, it's not All About You.Geez, A. Vargas, it's not All About You.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53801998375746529022010-06-13T12:42:09.904-04:002010-06-13T12:42:09.904-04:00To Anonymous:
"Case in point: PLoS journals a...To Anonymous:<br /><i>"Case in point: PLoS journals and their editors are in every way as bad as Nature's. (IMHO, of course)."<br /><br />Would you care to elaborate?</i><br /><br />When I spoke of PLoS journals, I had PLoS Biology in mind. Now I realize that other PLoS journals are not run the same way as PLoS Biology. So, limiting myself only to PLoS Biology and Nature: <br /><br />In both places most of the filtering occurs without any review by scientist experts. As a result, peer review plays only minor role. Instead, suitability of the manuscripts for publishing is decided by [typically] clueless editors who base their decisions much more on vanity, fashion, name and place recognitions than on scientific merit. <br /><br />In one way PLos Biology is even worse: their "strong encouragement" of presubmission enquiry (unofficial requirement of it is more like it) is a total perversion of the review process. <br /><br />One of the most off-putting experiences of my career was observing a bunch of Big Shots (NAS members, HHMI investigators, people who get mega$$ from NIH annually) competing in kissing ass of a Nature editor who was attending the same conference. This is what happens when we let failed postdocs to effectively determine the course of scientific progress.DKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72538411966092513562010-06-13T10:55:54.623-04:002010-06-13T10:55:54.623-04:00The impact of individual papers is actually quite ...<i>The impact of individual papers is actually quite measurable.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, this impact is only measurable years after publication. That's not much help for important things that need to happen right now like grant renewals and tenure decisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52208022681271464022010-06-13T08:12:11.781-04:002010-06-13T08:12:11.781-04:00They're limiting price increases to 7% in a re...They're limiting price increases to 7% in a recession that has seen average consumer prices drop--a disinflationary environment.<br /><br />Why aren't they *dropping* prices in the economic climate, especially for a good that has a near zero marginal cost?Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71960696378645821822010-06-13T05:21:51.710-04:002010-06-13T05:21:51.710-04:00"Case in point: PLoS journals and their edito..."Case in point: PLoS journals and their editors are in every way as bad as Nature's. (IMHO, of course)."<br /><br />Would you care to elaborate?<br /><br />I have no opinion on the matter. I'm asking from genuine curiosity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73154604346714143112010-06-13T03:07:19.268-04:002010-06-13T03:07:19.268-04:00That was before 45 min after my comment here. I...That was before 45 min after my comment here. I'm glad I got that slob to move his ass and comment about this (hehe)A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73023047327771721112010-06-13T00:07:41.832-04:002010-06-13T00:07:41.832-04:00A. Vargas All we hear from PZ are crickets..
That...A. Vargas <i>All we hear from PZ are crickets..</i><br /><br />That is not quite accurate: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/boycotting_nature.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9943064554823283792010-06-12T21:33:55.707-04:002010-06-12T21:33:55.707-04:00It will be a good thing to end this ridiculous sit...<i>It will be a good thing to end this ridiculous situation of a couple of heavily overrated journals, which in the end leaves in just a couple of editorial borads a lot of money-related decisions. For instance, impact of a cientists must be measured by the paper, not by the journal it was published in. The impact of individual papers is actually quite measurable.</i><br /><br />Open access by itself does not affect any of the above. Case in point: PLoS journals and their editors are in every way as bad as Nature's. (IMHO, of course).DKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48775633755018408272010-06-12T16:17:35.464-04:002010-06-12T16:17:35.464-04:00Nice to see someone reporting on this most crucial...Nice to see someone reporting on this most crucial and serious matter. All we hear from PZ are crickets... Meow, meow...did I just hear a P...y?<br /><br />Free access is the future of Science. The way of reducing nature's monopolic impact is diversification, and that fully deends on the scientists, who I call to submit to open-acces publications. <br /><br />It will be a good thing to end this ridiculous situation of a couple of heavily overrated journals, which in the end leaves in just a couple of editorial borads a lot of money-related decisions. For instance, impact of a cientists must be measured by the paper, not by the journal it was published in. The impact of individual papers is actually quite measurable.<br /> <br />How much of science is just bending back to an industry?A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75191529523576371162010-06-11T16:32:53.007-04:002010-06-11T16:32:53.007-04:00I like that they are limiting their annual increas...I like that they are limiting their annual increases to 7%. By what I'm sure is total coincidence, that is almost exactly what we have been limiting our annual tuition increases to for the last 5 or so years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90984964317246643852010-06-11T12:45:33.349-04:002010-06-11T12:45:33.349-04:00So if we take $4,465 / .12, we get the full price ...So if we take $4,465 / .12, we get the full price of $37,208 per journal. WOW.<br /><br />To bring the "discounts" into perspective, the proposed price of $17,479 is a 53% discount wrt $37,208.<br /><br />A 50% discount off of $37,208 = $18,604.AcidFlaskhttp://theochem.mit.edunoreply@blogger.com