Wednesday, May 5, 2010

It is hard to evaluate innovations when you have something to loose with them

There is a post at the Scholarly Kitchen that is receiving a lot of attention. Since I strongly disagree with its content, I will quote instead an interesting critique on its commentary area:
Efficiency is exactly the debate scientists, authors, and publishers need to be having. I don’t know what efficiency looks like, but putting pressure on authors to submit to high-ranking generalist journals when their stuff would be better suited to a niche outlet isn’t efficient for scientists or publishers. Forcing libraries to subscribe to Big Deals for a bunch of stuff they don’t want isn’t efficient nor is it good reader service. In fact, patting yourself on the back for your selectivity is hypocritical when you also force the library to carry the other journals that the rejected manuscripts end up in.
We can find other adequate responses here, here and here, for instance. Another point is that we cannot use journal ranks to evaluate a scientist or a research.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Before writing, please read carefully my policy for comments. Some comments may be deleted.

Please do not include links to commercial or unrelated sites in your comment or signature, or I'll flag it as SPAM.


Related Posts with Thumbnails