@ianholmes @eperlste @dgmacarthur @caseybergman and i'm not going to stop calling things as they are to avoid hurting people's feelings
@eperlste @ianholmes @dgmacarthur @caseybergman i think the "i should have to right to choose where to publish" argument is bullshit
@eperlste @ianholmes @dgmacarthur @caseybergman funding agencies can set rules for where you can publish if you take their money
This was by way of answering a Twitt from @ianholmes that set him off, I surmise:
@eperlste @dgmacarthur how I decide where to pub is kinda irrelevant. The point is, every scientist MUST have the freedom to decide for self
This whole thing is getting ridiculous. I don't have the unfettered freedom to decide where to publish my stuff and it most certainly is an outcome of the funding agency, in my case the NIH.
Here are the truths that we hold to be self-evident at present time. The more respected the journal in which we publish our work, the better the funding agency "likes" it. This encompasses the whole process from initial peer review of the grant applications, to selection for funding (sometimes via exception pay) to the ongoing review of program officers. It extends not just from the present award, but to any future awards I might be seeking to land.
Where I publish matters to them. They make it emphatically clear in ever-so-many-ways that the more prestigious the journal (which generally means higher IF, but not exclusively this), the better my chances of being continuously funded.
So I agree with @mbeisen about the "I have the right to choose where I publish is bullshit" part, but it is for a very different reason than seems to be motivating his attitude. The NIH already influences where I "choose" to publish my work. As we've just seen in a prior discussion, PLoS ONE is not very high on the prestige ladder with peer reviewers...and therefore not very high with the NIH.
So quite obviously, my funder is telling me not to publish in that particular OA venue. They'd much prefer something of a lower IF that is better respected in the field, say, the journals that have longer track records, happen to sit on the top of the ISI "substance abuse" category or are associated with the more important academic societies. Or perhaps even the slightly more competitive rank of journals associated with academic societies of broader "brain" interest.
Even before we get to the Glamour level....the NIH funding system cares where I publish.
Therefore I am not entirely "free" to choose where I want to publish and it is not some sort of moral failing that I haven't jumped on the exclusive OA bandwagon.
@ianholmes @eperlste @dgmacarthur @caseybergman bullshit - there's no debate - there's people being selfish and people doing the right thing
uh-huh. I'm "selfish" because I want to keep my lab funded in this current skin-of-the-teeth funding environment? Sure. The old one-percenter-of-science monster rears it's increasingly ugly head on this one.
@ianholmes @eperlste @dgmacarthur @caseybergman and we have every right to shame people for failing to live up to ideals of field
What an ass. Sure, you have the right to shame people if you want. And we have the right to point out that you are being an asshole from your stance of incredible science privilege as a science one-percenter. Lecturing anyone who is not tenured, doesn't enjoy HHMI funding, isn't comfortably ensconced in a hard money position, isn't in a highly prestigious University or Institute, may not even have achieved her first professorial appointment yet about "selfishness" is being a colossal dickweed.
Well, you know how I feel about dickweedes.
I do like @mbeisen and I do think he is on the side of angels here*. I agree that all of us need to be challenged and I find his comments to be this, not an unbearable insult. Would it hurt to dip one toe in the PLoS ONE waters? Maybe we can try that out without it hurting us too badly. Can we preach his gospel? Sure, no problem. Can we ourselves speak of PLoS ONE papers on the CVs and Biosketches of the applications we are reviewing without being unjustifiably dismissive of how many notes Amadeus has included? No problem.
So let us try to get past his rhetoric, position of privilege and stop with the tone trolling. Let's just use his frothing about OA to examine our own situations and see where we can help the cause without it putting our labs out of business.
*ETA: meaning Open Access, not his attacks on Twitter