PubMed Central's Failures in Handling Conflicts of Interest with eLife
One of the layers of impropriety regarding PubMed Central’s handling of eLife is its mismanagement of conflicts of interest.
One of the layers of impropriety regarding PubMed Central’s handling of eLife is its mismanagement of conflicts of interest.
More information emerges about PubMed Central, its processes, its relationship with eLife, and its role as a technology provider. Overall, it looks like certain OA friends get special treatment, and the processes you think occur are often short-circuited and may not even be tracked.
Last week, PubMed Central became the primary and sole publisher of eLife content, putting its competition with publishers, its manipulation of PubMed indexing criteria, its competition with publishing technology companies, and its clear OA bias into stark relief.
Funder-sponsored journals raise important conflict of interest questions, and may be fundamentally untenable in an industry that requires independent third-party evaluation of research reports.
In another rhetorical land grab, OA activists are aligning themselves with the Arab Spring by claiming their boycotts are the start of an “academic spring.” Not only are the two not comparable, but obviously the wrong target of oppression and exploitation has been identified.
Can a new open access journal that relies on working scientists to oversee its review process compete with other top-tier journals that employ professional editors?
Rhetoric can’t hide financial realities. Is trading research for access a good use of funds?
A new open access journal announced with much fanfare, but with few details, no name and no business plan.