tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1871542942842750523.post1864035388893758483..comments2023-07-24T10:40:57.739-04:00Comments on dechronization: New SSU Alignment and Phylogenetic Pipeline: STAPGlorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17707197225963721646noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1871542942842750523.post-15624540974685195822008-07-15T19:01:00.000-04:002008-07-15T19:01:00.000-04:00Note - as I posted on Mike the Mad Biologist's blo...Note - as I posted on Mike the Mad Biologist's blog that Jess links to --- we are trying to shift away from our proile alignment method that is used in STAP to using a secondary structure based alignment program that is under development by Sean Eddy.<BR/><BR/>And glor I definitely agree that, whatever you think of PLoS One or PLoS, there is no doubt that PLoS overall has helped to push the commercial and academic publishers towards OA.Jonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1871542942842750523.post-90501285824991731322008-07-12T13:58:00.000-04:002008-07-12T13:58:00.000-04:00Thanks, Jess - thought it was particularly cool th...Thanks, Jess - thought it was particularly cool that Eisen addressed most of those points almost immediately!Susan Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05944116263349266952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1871542942842750523.post-74896738383384712152008-07-11T08:50:00.000-04:002008-07-11T08:50:00.000-04:00Hey Susan, here's a link for some additional discu...Hey Susan, here's a link for some additional discussion about STAP:<BR/>http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2008/07/some_thoughts_about_stap.php<BR/><BR/>It may or may not be useful!Jessicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521885854883265567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1871542942842750523.post-18642442599917408452008-07-08T22:11:00.000-04:002008-07-08T22:11:00.000-04:00I really liked Eisen's discussion of the PLoS v. N...I really liked Eisen's discussion of the PLoS v. Nature issue. <BR/><BR/>It's obviously very important that the quality of publications - open access or not - stay high, but in a time when science literacy, respect, and funding is at a horrifying low, I'm definitely in favor of anything that can give people access to real research and scientific discussion, both. It shouldn't cost $50 to read a scientific paper. That's just plan wrong.Susan Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05944116263349266952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1871542942842750523.post-1833920542326776512008-07-08T21:55:00.000-04:002008-07-08T21:55:00.000-04:00Note that this article is published in the PLoS ti...Note that this article is published in the PLoS title - PLoS One - that recently attracted the ire of Nature. True to form of course, you can't actually read this criticism unless you have payed access to the journal. Eisen, who is the academic editor for PLoS, has already responded over at his blog (including a catalogue of links to other responses in the blogosphere). There's no question that PLoS One is publishing some substandard work. I, for one, don't really care what PLoS has to do to succeed...as long as they keep Nature on the run. Do you really think all the big time publishers would be moving toward more open access as quickly as they are if there weren't a trouble maker like PLoS on the scene?Glorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17707197225963721646noreply@blogger.com