From mick.watson roslin.ed.ac.uk Thu Mar 3 14:14:31 2016
From: WATSON Mick <mick.watsonroslin.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The peer review system
To: Multiple Recipients of AnGenMap <angenmapanimalgenome.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:14:31 -0600
To be fair, PLOS ONE have acted quickly to retract the article
http://journals.plos.org/...f813c4d099
------ Original message------
.From: DANIEL GIANOLA
.Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:07
.To: Multiple Recipients of AnGenMap <AnGenMapanimalgenome.org>
.Subject:Re: The peer review system
Jerry,
I side with you and will join your proposal of a boycott to PLOS ONE. Here
goes a definition (Wikipedia):
"A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing
with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually
for social or political reasons. The purpose of a boycott is to inflict some
economic loss on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, to try to compel
the target to alter an objectionable behavior."
which should be extended to "social, political or scientific reasons"
I must be brief. Otherwise I will miss the 00:10 flying ark.
Dan
________________________________________
.From: Taylor, Jerry F. (Animal Science) <taylorjerrmissouri.edu>
.Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 5:41 PM
.To: DANIEL GIANOLA
.Cc: Multiple Recipients of
.Subject: Re: The peer review system
Take a look at the reader comments. Plenty of calls for retraction in there!
Sometimes it just makes you wonder why we find it so hard to get papers
published with 3-4 rounds of review and re-review and then something
like this pops up!
I didnt much like PLoS One before thisbut now I think we will make sure
that our papers go elsewhere.by design!
Jerry
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 5:23 PM, DANIEL GIANOLA <gianolaansci.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Just read the abstract of this PLoS One paper:
> http://journals.plos.org/...ne.0146193
> Draw your own conclusion.
> Dan
|
