[Open-access] CC-BY

Tue Sep 3 15:32:51 UTC 2013

On Tuesday, September 3, 2013, 4:08:40 PM, you wrote:

> http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks/2013/08/31/troubling-open-access-cc-by/

> Thoughts?

Here are mine (comment on article):

Just PLoS ONE alone has published almost 100k OA articles since its inception. Now editors are going through all of these articles and picking the 'best' ones for a compilation in a book. And after all of this work (that Nature editors charge a hefty fee for, pre-publication!), some people are actually concerned that the publisher charges a measly 100 dollars for such a book? Granted, Nature (with a self-proclaimed cost *per article* of 35,000 dollars) would claim their selection process is much more rigorous and 'high quality' - but one only needs to look at the retraction rate of journals like Nature to get an idea just how 'rigorous' their selection is.

Bottom line: one can complain that the way in which this particular publisher is re-using the articles can be improved, but if anything, this sort of post-publication review and filter is what we need to see *more* of, not less.

Would the affected authors be equally dismayed if someone developed the cure for a disease after reading one of these books as a means to get up to speed on that particular affliction?
I can understand the issues with form, but that doesn't mean the function is equally bad.

Everyone concerned about this practice ought to be on fire to get rid of GlamMagz and then deal with this minor issue.

Also here:
http://bjoern.brembs.net/2013/07/publisher_selects_the_best_science_authors_complain/

Best wishes,

Bjoern

-- 
Björn Brembs
---------------------------------------------
http://brembs.net
Neurogenetics
Universität Regensburg
Germany