(Headline is misleading but a good arti
(Headline is misleading but a good article.)
Originally shared by Kevin BonhamYup.
"While some fringe OA publishers are playing a short con, subscription publishers are seasoned grifters playing a long con. They fleece the research community of billions of dollars every year by convincing them of something manifestly false – that their journals and their “peer review” process are an essential part of science, and that we need them to filter out the good science – and the good scientists – from the bad."![](http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/115a4ab66b810920f20e32408ecef945?s=80&d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G)
"While some fringe OA publishers are playing a short con, subscription publishers are seasoned grifters playing a long con. They fleece the research community of billions of dollars every year by convincing them of something manifestly false – that their journals and their “peer review” process are an essential part of science, and that we need them to filter out the good science – and the good scientists – from the bad."
I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals
Shared with: Public
+1'd by: Amit Benbassat
Reshared by: Amit Benbassat
This post was originally on Google+