PLoS journals

Constance Bailey: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7096/full/441914a.html
Constance Bailey: (sorry, I've been really intregued by the PLoS journals lately)
gvtennis55: hahaha
gvtennis55: i like the title of this article
gvtennis55: 14.7 is legit, dude (14.7 is the impact factor of PLoS biology)
Constance Bailey: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6958/full/425554a.html
Constance Bailey: yeah
Constance Bailey: i mean, it seems to have legit science
Constance Bailey: and so forth
Constance Bailey: just it's running itself bankrupt
gvtennis55: dude that would suck if you published in this journal
gvtennis55: and then they were no more
gvtennis55: IF of zero motherfuckers!
gvtennis55: also, what's up with this nature article about how it's competitor will ultimately fail with their competing business model?
gvtennis55: because if nature can convince enough authors that this PloS won't be around, nobody will submit and the prophecy will come true
Constance Bailey: it's like the NPR/PBS of science journals
Constance Bailey: i like it
gvtennis55: i know yo udo
gvtennis55: (you also like NPR)
Constance Bailey: they should do pledge drives
Constance Bailey: take the NPR business model
gvtennis55: hahahahaha
gvtennis55: you mean embrace what this article says they should run from - a permanent reliance on philanthropy?
Constance Bailey: "donate 100 dollars to PLoS and we will give you this limited time PLoS logo 1,000 mL micropipette"