PLoS

Mar 15 2016 Published by under Careers, NIH

Interesting...

https://storify.com/jtth/andrew-kern-on-plos

 

UPDATE:

I found at least some of Michael Eisen's responses to Andrew Kern's tweets. Worth reading (click on the tweets below)-

 

UPDATE 2:

It's worth looking at PLoS's Core Principles. I'm not seeing anything there they've violated by acting like... a business. And before you leap on Principle 6, "fair price" is generally interpreted as "what the market will bear". PLoS doesn't seem to be hurting for submissions.

 

18 responses so far

  • drugmonkey says:

    Did PLoS ever claim to be something other than a business? I thought their only claim was to publish scientific content without a paywall preventing any interested parties from viewing the articles?

    • odyssey says:

      No, they didn't claim to be anything other than a business. It is interesting to see this laid bare though. Not necessarily surprising, but interesting.

      • Zen Faulkes says:

        PLOS prominently puts "non-profit publisher" on its home page. For many, "non-profit" is about 180 degrees away from "business."

        • odyssey says:

          I think Michael Eisen addresses the profit part in his responses. Sounds like it's a) reinvested in the business, and b) put away as a rainy day fund. Many non-profits do the same.

        • drugmonkey says:

          You are deranged about how nonprofits work Zen. Market rate exec pay is pretty normal. So is building endowment. So is advertising. Etc. there is nothing to see here.

  • It would be nice if whomever assembled those tweets had included the responses.

  • drugmonkey says:

    This pastrami dude is basically ranting because PLoS isn't what he thinks it should be, from the sidelines, without any responsibility for making something like this work? ok.

  • […] from Odyssey who picked out some replies from Michael […]

  • FTG says:

    40 consecutive tweets? Yikes!

  • dr24 says:

    The one thing I respect about Eisen wrt scipub is his acknowledgement that OA isn't about getting the money out of publishing.

    I have no problem with PLOS folks making lots of dough. But they seem happy to cultivate the Robin Hood image, and it's not warranted.

    • drugmonkey says:

      I'm sure what everyone most craves is your approval for their positions, dude.

    • Jonathan Badger says:

      I'm fairly sure Robin Hood needed to keep himself in not inexpensive suits of Lincoln green (dye was expensive in the middle ages) and his subordinates like Friar Tuck seemed to need quite a bit of ale to keep morale up, which was also a cost. Plus in some versions he seemed to run an entire hidden village in the forest which would require staff, repairs, construction, etc.

  • odyssey says:

    PLoS does still fit the Robin Hood model. They take from the (information) rich (scientists), and give to the (information) poor (public).