I have a partially written half baked (eventually to be fully baked) post expanding on Open Access publishing and the PLoS – Nature controversy (which is heating up quite nicely). But I may or may not finish it. What I do want to point out now is that I’ve made a couple of changes in my earlier post on the Nature commentary on PLoS by way of correction. There are two simple points to make here:
1) My own criticism of “peer review” is really meant to be a broader critique of the publishing process overall. Furthermore, my belief is NOT that the situation with science publishing is totally screwed up, but rather, that there are some real problems that must be addressed, and PLoS as Open Access and PLoS as on line is an important model for what I see as a good approach to solving some of these problems.
2) I had misatributed to an unidentified person associated with BMC a certain comment. Butler’s article clearly insinuates this connection but technically does not make it. So I changed the wording there. But I would like to know why Butler makes such a clear yet indefinate link. Is there some sort of intrigue here?
… No, wait a minute. I don’t want to know. It really is not all that interesting. Just give me my Open Access and … shut. up.