protohedgehog’s Techdirt Profile

protohedgehog

About protohedgehog




protohedgehog’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 25th, 2018 @ 12:58am

    Re:

    Saying that no-one cares about Elsevier is quite naieve, when there is substantial evidence that they are growing in power and influence in the open science space. It's not just about access either - if SciHub was going to subvert Elsevier, then why has it not done so in the last 5 years?

    Hindawi is also not a predatory publisher. If this information is based on Beall's List, please be aware that this has been repeatedly discredited due to a number of biases and flaws. If anything, they are one of the most promising OA publishers now.
  • Jul 16th, 2018 @ 6:05am

    Re: Re: Correcting the above misleading statement

    Aha, thank you for the updated information. I see now that based on linear regression, the correct statistic is 12%, when the data are modified to include the Lancet family of journals. And 10% when a power-law relationship is applied, which is lower than the 25% quoted from the original source.

    However, irrespective of this, it is still an issue for two reasons. Firstly, the aforementioned COI involved. Secondly, Elsevier titles are still getting a clear boost based on their own metrics, which should be setting off alarm bells all around.

    I also think that these data need to be scrutinised a bit more carefully. There are what, 2700 journals that Elsevier own, across an incredibly heterogeneous landscape. To get any sort of real understanding of the metric, we need to analyse things in more detail. However, again, the COI and CiteScore boost should both be the major points of concern at the moment.
  • Jul 11th, 2018 @ 9:15am

    Correcting the above misleading statement

    As the author of the original article in The Guardian, I feel that the comment above should be responded to.

    A simple reading of that COI statement from Eigenfactor says nothing about the correction of the data or resulting statistics at all. It makes it clear that their main concern was the COI of having Elsevier managing CiteScore in the first place, which is the key point emphasised over and over again, but which defendants of Elsevier seem to miss. Reading that article as being favourable to Elsevier in light of the present circumstances is a demonstration of selective reading.

    Furthermore, why I would comment on other publishers when the focus of the article is on Elsevier is not a point worth making for obvious reasons.

    So, the facts remain, the comment above is false, and serves only as a distraction from the numerous real issues at hand, which are now reinforced by the global research community, and without any sort of real response from any of the parties challenged. Comments like this are generally insulting to anyone with the ability to read.

    For those interested, I have now responded to Elsevier, and a personal press release from the President of the Lisbon Council in full: http://fossilsandshit.com/response-to-president-paul-hofheinz-of-the-lisbon-council-regarding-elsevi er-and-the-open-science-monitor/ (excuse the URL..)

    For those who don't want to read the whole thing, this was my final comment on the matter:

    This is twice now, including the response by Elsevier, that I have had assaults made on my character over this matter, which look like strategic attempts to discredit me, rather than the substance of the posts. Terms like ‘misleading’ and ‘misinformation’ have been used repeatedly, without any substantial evidence, and detracting from addressing the numerous issues that I have raised. These issues have been co-signed by more than 600 [now 800] members of the global research community in a formal complaint to the EU Ombudsman, and not treated with the respect that they deserve by Elsevier or the Council. As a result of this, I will no longer respond to such comments, which are not the sort of critical, granular responses I was expecting as part of a professional, critical, and courteous discourse on this matter. However, if members of the consortium, and Elsevier, wish to directly address the points I have raised, then I am available.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it