AnGenMap Archived Post

From DwerlingRVC.AC.UK  Thu Mar  3 14:33:45 2016
From: "Werling, Dirk" <DwerlingRVC.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: The peer review system
To: Multiple Recipients of AnGenMap <angenmapanimalgenome.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:33:45 -0600

But the big question isn't so much why it was published, but why was it
send out for reviewing in the first instance?


On 03/03/2016, 20:14, "WATSON Mick" <mick.watsonroslin.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>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