5 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2018
    1. demands

      Again, in addition to the great points already made, I am just pointing out the problematic rhetorical device. For a certain OA business model supported by APCs, payment is on the author's side—yes. But, also, payment is not "demanded" from authors any more than subscription fees are "demanded" from libraries or the coffeeshop "demanded" payment from me earlier today...

    2. "But we need to find a balance. We need a system of checks and balances, but we also need to avoid overregulating to avoid killing academic freedom."

      I agree the overregulation he mentions at the beginning of the paragraph can lead to problems, and others have already pointed out that such accountability movements have nothing to do with open science practices. My comment here is to point out the rhetorical device being employed here. Suddenly, "more transparency" (e.g. sharing data in already established data repositories) has become "overregulation". If showing your evidence is overregulation, then the Royal Society's motto "nullius in verba" can now be characterized as merely an administrative overstep!

  2. May 2015
    1. Author and peer reviewer anonymity haven’t been shown to have an overall benefit, and they may cause harm. Part of the potential for harm is if journals act as though it’s a sufficiently effective mechanism to prevent bias.
    2. Peer reviewers were more likely to substantiate the points they made (9, 14, 16, 17) when they knew they would be named. They were especially likely to provide extra substantiation if they were recommending an article be rejected, and they knew their report would be published if the article was accepted anyway (9, 15).
    3. Declarations: A part of my day job is responsibility for PubMed Commons, a forum for open, signed, post-publication commenting. I am currently an academic editor for PLOS Medicine and on the human research ethics advisory group for PLOS One. I’ve had editorial roles with other journals in the past, including part-time professional lead editing. As I mention The BMJ’s research and policy favorably in this post, I note that I have close ties with this journal. I was a member of their ethics committee for several years (including regular supported travel) and participated in advising on some special issues of the journal. I recently traveled to speak at Evidence Live with their support, and I’ve published multiple articles with them (see this search, and a further two invited commentaries: this and at the foot of this). I contributed a chapter to their book, Peer Review in Health Sciences (2nd edition, 2003, edited by Tom Jefferson and Fiona Godlee).

      I commend this kind of transparency statement, which should be done way more often in the various scholarly communication blogs and channels