Comments on: Bulk Publishing Keeps PLoS Afloat

By: Cascading Peer-Review — The Future of Open Access? « The Scholarly Kitchen

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:27:07 +0000

[...] Now, there is nothing incorrect about this job ad. BMJ clearly sees a market for their new open access journal. But that’s it — a market, a business opportunity. The ad is devoid of any lofty goals and aspirations for how this journal is going to improve medicine. BMJ Open represents a business decision to recapture manuscripts (and article processing fees) that would have been lost to other publishers. It is a bulk publishing model, not unlike PLoS ONE. [...]

By: PLoS ONE: Is a High Impact Factor a Blessing or a Curse? « The Scholarly Kitchen

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:13:33 +0000

[...] to rely heavily on automation and minimal intervention from the publisher. For PLoS ONE, being a “bulk publishing” journal serves a clear purpose and one that should not be [...]

By: PLoS ONE: Is a High Impact Factor a Blessing or Curse? « The Scholarly Kitchen

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:26:38 +0000

[...] to rely heavily on automation and minimal intervention from the publisher. For PLoS ONE, being a “bulk publishing” journal serves a clear purpose and one that should not be [...]

By: PLoS’ Squandered Opportunity — Their Problems with the Path of Least Resistance « The Scholarly Kitchen

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:21:16 +0000

[...] One of the easiest ways to maximize revenues with an author-pays model is to publish as many papers as possible. This is the path of least resistance for author-pays publishing. And thus, starting in late 2006, PLoSONE became their financial salvation, a salvation achieved via bulk publishing. [...]

By: Can the costs of quality-filtration be reduced? « Be openly accessible or be obscure

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:53:38 +0000

[...] ONE to subsidize its more selective journals (see the 14 min. point in the video, and, for example, Bulk Publishing Keeps PLoS Afloat, Philip Davis, The Scholarly Kitchen, July 7, [...]

By: Self-Publishing Review — Blog — Self-Publishing and Scholarship Don’t Mix Well

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 02:23:47 +0000

[...] the argument goes, the more money they make, so why not publish the most papers possible? There’s some evidence that one prominent open-access publisher has taken this [...]

By: BuddyPress Blogs — Blog — Why Do Fiction Publishers Get So Uptight About Self-Publishing?

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:51:29 +0000

[...] At the same time, the field I work in (scientific publishing) is experimenting with a phenomenon called “author-pays publication,” which is essentially a self-publishing motif. Supposedly, peer-review occurs to control the quality of the works published, in which case this is a purely financial arrangement, but there are documented cases of publishers using little or no peer-review and cashing in on author fees or employing the most modest peer-review while relying on the fees generated through bulk publishing. [...]

By: Why Do Fiction Publishers Get So Uptight About Self-Publishing? | Self-Publishing Review

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:39:05 +0000

By: Open Access and Vanity Publishing « The Scholarly Kitchen

Open Access and Vanity Publishing « The Scholarly Kitchen — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:41:32 +0000

[...] Prices charged to authors may not be the true costs incurred to the journal for publishing an article. PLoS ONE authors are charged more to publish their article with revenues diverted to subsidize autho…Medicine. [...]

By: PLoS Releases Article-level Metrics « The Scholarly Kitchen

PLoS Releases Article-level Metrics « The Scholarly Kitchen — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:49:44 +0000

[...] move in advance of being given its first impact factor score for PLoS ONE, a journal with different editorial goals than its flagship journals. Understanding that authors are infatuated with journal impact factors, PLoS may be positioning [...]