text:
BREAKING NEWS: Man who stoned another man in viral Saint Lucia video arrested and charged
Police investigating suspected suicide in Gros Islet
BREAKING NEWS: Man burnt to death in Babonneau fire
Man shot dead in Morne Du Don identified
UPDATE: Nadeije Mitchell, 16, appears in Castries court on murder charge
St. Lucia News Online St. Lucia News Online brings daily breaking news, photos, and videos to St. Lucia
MASSIVE SALE AT AUTO DOMAIN INC. IN CORINTH, GROS ISLET, July 15-July 20, 2019, 40% off on selected items: transmissions, engines, body, electric, brakes, filters, headlamps. Call 758-584-2621 or 758-287-2886
Accident/Tragedy
Antigua and Barbuda News
Dominica News
Grenada News
Martinique News
St. Vincent and the Grenadines News
Trinidad and Tobago News
Crime/Police
GIS News
Youth/Education
Oscar Pistorius jail term for killing Reeva Steenkamp more than doubled
By BBC
Pistorius shot Ms Steenkamp in 2013
(BBC) – A South African court has increased Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius's jail sentence for killing his girlfriend to 13 years and five months.
Prosecutors had argued that the six-year term for murdering Reeva Steenkamp was "shockingly light".
Ms Steenkamp's parents were "emotional" as they watched the ruling at home on TV, a spokeswoman said.
"They feel there has been justice for Reeva. She can now rest in peace," Tania Koen told Associated Press.
"But at the same time, people think this is the end of the road for them… the fact is they still live with Reeva's loss every day," Ms Koen said.
Oscar Pistorius claimed he shot dead Ms Steenkamp on Valentine's Day in 2013 after mistaking her for a burglar.
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein has now given Pistorius the minimum 15 years prescribed for murder in South Africa, less time already served.
The lower court had justified the six-year sentence by citing mitigating circumstances such as rehabilitation and remorse. It said they outweighed aggravating factors such as his failure to fire a warning shot.
Pistorius's brother Carl said on social media that he was "shattered. Heartbroken. Gutted" at the decision.
"We have all suffered incomprehensible loss. The death of Reeva was and still is a great loss for our family too," he wrote.
Tackling inconsistency
There is huge relief here from the National Prosecuting Authority and from Ms Steenkamp's family and friends.
Prosecutors are relieved because the earlier sentence of six years for murder could have set a precedent in future trials. The Pistorius family are devastated, as is the athlete himself.
The six-year sentence gave an impression of inconsistency. There have been fraud and corruption trials that led to 15-year sentences. It seemed lenient considering that the Paralympian fired four bullets into a bathroom door behind which there was an unarmed and frightened Ms Steenkamp.
Oscar Pistorius, 31, was not in court to hear the decision.
He was initially given a five-year term for manslaughter in 2014, but was found guilty of murder on appeal in 2015.
Pistorius shot Ms Steenkamp four times through a locked toilet door at his home in the capital Pretoria.
Previously, the six-time Paralympic gold medallist had made history by becoming the first amputee sprinter to compete at the Olympics, in 2012 in London, running on prosthetic "blades".
He had his legs amputated below the knee as a baby.
Rise and fall of Oscar Pistorius
August 2012: Competes in London Olympics and Paralympics, where he won a gold medal
February 2013: Shoots dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp
March 2014: Trial begins
September 2014: Judge finds Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide
October 2014: Begins five-year sentence
October 2015: Transferred to house arrest
December 2015: Appeal court changes verdict to murder
July 2016: Sentenced to six years in jail for murder
November 2017: Sentence more than doubled to 15 years, less time served
This article was posted in its entirety as received by stlucianewsonline.com. This media house does not correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of stlucianewsonline.com, its sponsors or advertisers.
Trinidad: Gunfire all night as reputed gangsters killed
Trinidad: 7 arrested in plot to steal murdered couple's life savings
Castries murder victim "never got himself in trouble" — relative
Guyana: Man sentenced to 30 years in prison for stabbing wife to death
Did you know NYC's first black borough president was a Saint Lucian?
Prime Minister Chastanet congratulates Carnival winners, commends police
6 p.m. July 18, 2019 weather update
Oscar Pistorius hurt in prison fight in South Africa (0)
INTERNATIONAL: Pistorius sentenced to six years for girlfriend's murder (0)
INTERNATIONAL: Oscar Pistorius guilty of murdering Reeva Steenkamp (1)
Cash offer to make Grace Mugabe assault case 'go away' (0)
Pakistan Zainab murder: Police arrest suspect (0)
INTERNATIONAL: Football player mistakenly thanks his wife and girlfriend on live TV (6)
Disclaimer/Copyright Policy
Mail: Gros Islet Post Office, Gros Islet, Saint Lucia, West Indies
Copyright © 2012 – 2018 – StLuciaNewsOnline.com,
Andrews Media Services Corporation.
Gros Islet, Saint Lucia, West Indies
BREAKING NEWS: Homicide in Morne Du Don


text:
For Better Science
Science journalism by Leonid Schneider, on research integrity and academic publishing in life sciences and biomedicine
About me and Contact
Donate, or engage my services!
References to my work
Macchiarini's trachea transplant patients: the full list
Is Frontiers a potential predatory publisher?
The Lausanne-based publishing house Frontiers, founded by the neuroscientists Henry and Kamila Markram, has been added to the Beall's List of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Was this decision justified? I wish to share here some of my recent investigations.
by Leonid Schneider
The Lausanne-based publishing house Frontiers, founded by the neuroscientists Henry and Kamila Markram, has been recently added to the Beall's List of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Was this decision justified? I wish to share here some of my recent investigations.
Previously, I reported about an editorial conflict at the Frontiers medical section in Laborjournal and Lab Times. In May 2015 Frontiers sacked almost all of its medical chief editors. This was because those chief editors had signed a "Manifesto of Editorial Independence", which went against one of the key guidelines of Frontiers, namely that editors must always "allow the authors an opportunity for a rebuttal". Associate editors are namely instructed to always "consider the rebuttal of the authors", even "if the independent reviews are unfavourable". At the same time, chief editors claimed to have had little, if any, influence over the editorial processes at Frontiers. Since the Frontiers Executive Editor Frederick Fenter fired all 31 signatory chief editors, Frontiers in Medicine has been operated without an Editor-in-Chief and with few Chief Specialty Editors. Medical ethics requirement for publication, originally introduced by the previous chief editors, were not implemented in the Frontiers instructions for authors. There appear to be few people in a position to provide oversight, while the associate editors handle manuscripts which they often receive directly from authors. Some of these associate editors are no strangers to controversy themselves; Alfredo Fusco, who is also a frequent author at Frontiers in Medicine, has had several of his papers retracted and is facing a criminal investigation over alleged data manipulations.
The Frontiers in Medicine "purge" led me to inquire into how Frontiers' unique editorial model works in their other journals. What I learned is that even the associate editors often find their power limited: once a manuscript has been sent out for peer review, Frontiers editors have hardly any option to reject it. This may explain how controversial papers came to be published in Frontiers, e.g. one denying that HIV is the cause of AIDS, or another suggesting that vaccinations cause autism.
On the other hand, Frontiers is quite popular with many scientists and research organisations. How can a publisher which helped pioneer such innovations as open access and name-signed peer review, have come to this?
Frontiers' story began in 2007, with the first journal Frontiers in Neuroscience. One of its very first accepted articles, before the new journal was officially accepting submissions, was a theory on the origins of autism by journal founders Kamila and Henry Markram. Since then, their Intense World Theory (formerly Intense World Syndrome) has been published in various Frontiers neuroscience-related journals. There, the Markrams' COI statement always proclaims "the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest". Yet these two authors have an apparent ownership interest in the journals they publish. Henry Markram is listed as Co-Founder & Editor-in-Chief at Frontiers, Kamila Markram as Co-Founder & CEO. The mass sacking of medical chief editors suggests, they might be in a position to decide on the employment and remuneration of their editors.
Meanwhile, Frontiers manages according to own website "54 open access journals, 55,000 editors, 38,000 articles". Some Frontiers editors I communicated with were quite content with the publisher. Anne Simon, professor at the University of Maryland in the USA (and one of the whistle-blowers in the case of Olivier Voinnet, which I have been covering for Lab Times), is also Editor-in Chief (EiC) of the journal Frontiers In Virology. She describes her experience as "extremely positive". Unlike the medical chief editors, Simon says she was never was left in the dark about submitted manuscripts or witnessed their inappropriate handling by associate editors or reviewers.
Simon explained to me in an email that she sees the Editor-in-Chief as
"the next point of contact for editors who are having problems handling a manuscript or needing advice, and authors, who may be upset with decisions and want to contact someone other than the editor who handled the manuscript".
She added:
"we are frequently called upon to politely nudge late reviewers, when the editor and journal managers have been unsuccessful, or if there is an editor who is slow in the review process". Maybe this is why Frontiers in Virology is one of the best cited Frontiers journals, because the chief editors are free to do their jobs? Simons clarifies: "Most journals can operate smoothly without EiC most of the time. But when something comes up, (…) then the EiC is a critical part of the journal for making decisions about exceptions to journal "rules" and dealing with papers that have possible ethical issues".
Apparently Frontiers in Medicine can operate without an Editor-in Chief, and indeed it has done for months now. But what about the ethical duties Simon was mentioning?
Matthias Barton, cardiology professor at the University of Zurich and former EiC of Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, told me that when he and his fellow editors were sacked, their ethical policies were also shown the door. New medical ethics guidelines, which he and his colleagues had established to preserve clinical safety and patient protection, were revoked. For example, Barton and colleagues stipulated that "For each manuscript submitted, every author needs to electronically complete and sign the COI form provided by ICMJE [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors], and all completed COI forms need to be submitted with the manuscript".
Today, however, there is no requirement or even option for every author to provide a signed COI statement at Frontiers in Medicine, despite ICMJE guidelines. Instead, the corresponding author simply has to make one click to verify COI status on behalf of others.
Another example of the post-purge reform: Frontiers does not distinguish in their section "Case Reports" between human and animal subjects anymore. The guidelines for manuscript submission are the same for both. No mention is made that human patient identity must be specifically respected and protected, in fact the new Frontiers guidelines there are same as for horses and cattle. The previous definition of the "Case Report", as written by the now absent editors, was focused on human patients only and included demands such as: "Manuscripts must not include any information that allows identification of the patient. This includes, but is not limited to, names, initials, and hospital information" as well as "as anonymity cannot be guaranteed by simply covering the eye area with a black bar, the patient, parent, or guardian must be shown the photograph intended for publication, provide informed consent for its publication, and be informed by the authors that the image will be visible on the internet". For Frontiers in Medicine, these rules are now a thing of the past.
Simon also stated:
"Having a scientist as EiC who is in the same [research-] field as the journal is important for making informed decisions".
However, this does not appear to be the case for the new head of Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. After the editorial purge, the journal received its new EiC, Hendrik Tevaearai Stahel, professor of Cardiovascular Surgery at the Inselspital in Bern, Switzerland. Cardiovascular medicine is a branch of internal medicine and requires an utterly different medical specialization than cardiac surgery. A heart surgeon cannot replace a cardiovascular internist. Dr. Tevaearai Stahel's CV is rather inconclusive in the area of cardiovascular medicine than one would anticipate for the EiC of this journal.
Frontiers' philosophy is to give all authors a chance to publish their work in one of their journals. In basic science, this is, to a degree, a laudable approach indeed. Many scientists convincingly argue that every single research study should be published and judged by the scrutiny of scientist colleagues in post-publication peer review. Yet this option is not available at Frontiers, and while the reviewers are named, their peer review reports are kept confidential. This concept to publish almost every manuscript, while keeping the peer review process rather opaque, has possibly contributed to the recent placing of the publisher Frontiers on the Beall's List.
With medical studies, which go beyond laboratory experiments, the issue of proper editorial process is even more serious. Doctors adjust their patient treatments according to recent developments and publications in their field. This is why there are strict ethical rules and quality guidelines for clinically relevant medical publications, as issued by the ICMJE and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Therefore, there can be many reasons for a submitted manuscript to be rejected. However, at Frontiers, the rejection option is not always available. Generally, a peer reviewer can only withdraw from the peer review; recommending rejection is not an available option. If a reviewer does withdraw, the handling editor is automatically prompted to find a replacement reviewer. Theoretically, this can go on back and forth until two positive peer reviews are finally obtained. Occasionally, associate editors skip the search for willing reviewers altogether and perform the peer review themselves.
Tamas Szakmany, honorary senior lecturer in intensive care medicine at the Cardiff University in UK, reports of his experience as a reviewer for Frontiers in Medicine:
"The piece in question was lacking very basic aspects of a scientific manuscript and the authors failed to make any amends. I made it very clear at the first response to the authors that the paper was unacceptable in this format and although they made some small changes, they did not address any of my major comments. The subsequent rounds of "revisions" were getting nowhere and as there was no option for me to reject the manuscript in the online review system and the Editor couldn't make this decision as he was forced to give further "chances" for improvement, I felt that I had no other option than to withdraw from the process as the authors were clearly not willing to understand".
Szakmany summarizes:
"From a reviewer point, there is no opportunity to reject a paper, only to endorse or ask for further revisions".
The specialty chief editor responsible for the above-mentioned Szakmany-reviewed manuscript was Zsolt Molnár, professor for intensive care medicine at the University of Szeged in Hungary. Molnár was among the signatories of the editorial Manifesto, which resulted in his removal together with 30 other chief editors. While still in his post, Molnár protested about the unrejectable manuscript to the Frontiers in Medicine "Editorial Office" – actually a publisher-run department outside of any academic editor control. He received a reply from the journal manager who explained:
"once a paper is sent for peer-review, we want to give the authors the chance to discuss with the reviewers in the interactive review stage. You can always reject a manuscript BEFORE [caps in the original] sending it to reviewers/review editors".
Yet just in the previous sentence, the journal manager also explained:
"Regarding rejecting before interactive review: the reason we strongly discourage this is because Frontiers wishes to overcome one of the common concerns that authors have – that the editors have overruled their chance to discuss their paper with the reviewers".
This sounds somewhat like a Catch-22 situation, in which the very act of sending out a paper for peer review precludes the ability to reject this paper on the basis of the review, should it turn out negative.
The resulting high acceptance rate at Frontiers goes hand-in-hand with the fact that the publisher has offered its chief editors a reward of €5,000 "for each batch of 120 papers submitted to your section in 2015".
Yet under certain conditions, Frontiers has no problems with rejections at all, even of positively reviewed manuscripts. Lydia Maniatis, formerly adjunct psychologist at the American University in Washington DC, had such an experience. She submitted a rather critical Commentary (a publication type generally published by Frontiers free of charge) on a certain Frontiers in Human Neuroscience article which dealt with visual shape perception. Her manuscript was assigned an associate editor, but soon rejected. The reason was: despite one endorsing review, another reviewer chose to wordlessly withdraw. No specific criticisms from this reluctant reviewer were forwarded to Maniatis. No replacement reviewer was appointed, despite Maniatis' many requests. Instead, the associate editor reviewed the manuscript himself, despite being a child psychologist and autism specialist rather outside the field. He decreed that Maniatis' revised manuscript was "not adequate and lacked clarity and focus", without providing any further explanations. With the support of the journal's Chief Editor, the rejection was final. Maniatis later published her criticisms on PubPeer and PubMed Commons and was finally able to engage with the authors of the paper.
After Frontiers was listed as a potential predatory publisher, Nature News has reported on the scientists' protests about this addition to the "controversial 'Beall's List'". The Nature Publishing Group (NPG) is owned by the German publishing house Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, which is also the partial owner of Frontiers. Indeed, as I reported for Laborjournal and Lab Times, NPG became a major stakeholder in Frontiers, publicly much celebrated by both publishers. Then, at the beginning of 2015, a break came. NPG representatives have left the Frontiers board, with Henry Markram taking over their duties. The current administrative board lists the Markrams, some Frontiers employees, the reviewing board member PricewaterhouseCoopers (USA), a representative from the private equity firm CVC Capital Partners (Luxembourg), and Michael Brockhaus, Head of Group Strategy at the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. I have reached out to Brockhaus, through his personal assistant, for a comment on the nature of Holtzbrinck's financial involvement with Frontiers, yet received no reply.
One could assume that NPG has sold or withdrawn their investment in Frontiers, however one fact suggests that there has not been a total financial divorce: Nature journals keep advertising for the Frontiers-owned academic social network, Loop, by posting links to authors' Loop profiles (which are created automatically for all Frontiers authors) on their article websites. Certain editors told me that they did not succeed in having their Loop account fully deleted.
Loop may help Frontiers and NPG scientists to connect, but not every account belongs to a bona fide user. The network contains a number of obviously inappropriate or bogus accounts, and Frontiers has been informed by then-EiC Barton about certain questionable Loop profiles. Some, such as the profile "Isha FB1 TEST Jan" (whose only content was a photo of a pornographic film actress) were removed, but others remain active: an Indian "Genius Mind", a US professor by the name of "Alpha Shred", a teenage professor from Macedonia, a Chinese senior researcher "Eagle Eagle Jg", a student of a geographically bizarre "Amedeo Avogadro University of Eastern Piedmont" in Lebanon, and finally a US based CEO called "mis souri" whose speciality is the "wonderful sport of duck hunting". Frontiers thanked Barton in January 2015 for sharing the information on these strange researcher profiles, but has yet to remove them.
Regardless their publishing and editorial policies, Frontiers journals have recently joined the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) en masse. Coincidently or not, prior to this the Frontiers journal manager Mirjam Curno joined the committee as council member. While most other journals list their editors-in-chief as their COPE contact, none of the listed Frontiers journals does. Instead, their COPE contacts are exclusively the employees of the publisher, working in managerial capacities – and not involved in the editorial process of the journals. Some of these employees have little experience in the research fields they are now supervising. One is a former earth scientist, now in charge of veterinary science, neurology and psychiatry. Another studied English and Croatian at university but is now an oncology, endocrinology and public health specialist. Yet another, who supervises several Frontiers life science journals despite having studied earth sciences, has no PhD. In fact, a number of Frontiers journal managers carry no academic credentials beyond a bachelor's degree, in a field unrelated to their Frontiers duties. All of this would not necessarily be a problem if these managers were assisting and answering to the senior academic editors of their respective journals. Instead, as the sacked medical chief editors have experienced, these journal managers interfered with the editorial process, by occasionally advising these editors to keep recruiting further reviewers or dissuading them from rejecting a manuscript.
Editorial independence, free from the meddling of the owner and publisher is a key principle of good editorial practice in science publishing, as stipulated by highly respected organizations such as ICMJE and COPE. Shortly after sacking its editors, Frontiers listed its medical and other journals as "Following the ICMJE Recommendations" and, as mentioned, became member of COPE. These events however do not mean that Frontiers is bound to change its internal policies. Why? Simply because both organizations seem not to mind when those who publicly subscribe to their rules don't actually consider adhering to them.
More on this soon.
The author wishes to thank NS, RP, PSB, SC and JB for their critical comments on this text.
28.10.2015: The institutional affiliation of Lydia Maniatis has been corrected -LS
06.11.2015: Two journals, which list their EiCs as COPE contacts, were erroneously attributed to Frontiers Media. The reader "MH" has pointed out the mistake in a comment below. This text correction means that not a single Frontiers journal lists its chief editor as COPE contact. -LS
Frederick Fenter of Frontiers about this article (source: his rebuttal letter to Jeffrey Beall):
If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism, however small it appears to you, will greatly help me with my legal costs.
Tagsconflict of interest • Frontiers • medicine • open access • peer review • predatory publishing
About Leonid Schneider
Independent Science Journalist and Cartoonist. Formerly molecular cell biologist. My academic CV at: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6204-9470
forbetterscience.wordpress.com
70 comments on "Is Frontiers a potential predatory publisher?"
Gabriel Finkelstein
I very much liked your essay. I also work at the same institution as Jeff Beall, but that's purely coincidental.
My own experience at Frontiers in Neuroscience was quite positive. I was invited to contribute an article on paradigm shifts in neuroscience, and even though most historians of science now reject the concept I rose to the challenge based on the quality of the other contributors to the issue. Frontiers' peer-review process was transparent. My reviewer made reasonable objections, most of which I accepted, but some (e.g. "rewrite your article to argue against paradigm shifts") I could not for obvious reasons. My editor was also reasonable, and my manuscript went to press quite rapidly. I balked at paying to publish, but in my case the fee was waived.
I think that the dangers that you and Jeff Beall identify are real. On the other hand, my experience with Frontiers was no worse than those I've had with traditional journals in my field, some of which acted much worse in their choices of peer reviewer or in pressuring me to sign off on deficient and even plagiarized manuscripts. I also like reaching an audience of scientists, not historians, and am happy that 500 people have viewed my essay within a month of its publication. It usually takes ten years to garner this many readers in traditional journals.
The world of academic publishing is changing. There are new pressures and new dangers, and it's important that scholars like you keep a close eye on what is going on. I've had enough terrible experiences of corruption within the traditional system to keep an open mind about ventures like Frontiers. Let's hope that it works out for the best.
Klaas van Dijk
A quote from Tamas Szakmany: "The subsequent rounds of "revisions" were getting nowhere and as there was no option for me to reject the manuscript in the online review system and the Editor couldn't make this decision as he was forced to give further "chances" for improvement, I felt that I had no other option than to withdraw from the process as the authors were clearly not willing to understand."
It seems to me that 'no option for a peer-reviewer to reject the manuscript' is not in line with Principle 4 of "The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice". From http://www.rug.nl/about-us/organization/rules-and-regulations/algemeen/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/code-wetenschapsbeoefening-14-en.pdf :
"Principle 4. Impartiality. In their scientific or scholarly activities, academic practitioners are led by no other
interest than academic interest, and they are always prepared to account for their actions.
4.3. A reviewer carefully reflects whether they can offer an impartial assessment of a manuscript, for instance when it concerns a competing research group.
4.4. In assessing the performance of others (peer review of research and manuscripts), academic practitioners are led by scientific or scholarly arguments, and they refrain from assessing a manuscript if there could be any doubt about the impartiality of their opinion."
See http://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Code-of-Practice-for-Research.pdf for the UKRIO Code of Conduct.
Marcos Pedlowski
Reblogged this on Blog do Pedlowski.
Lydia Maniatis (@LydiaManiatis)
Just want to clarify some of the details of my experience with FHN. I actually did go through a fairly extensive interactive review process that led to a revision and the unconditional endorsement of one reviewer. The second reviewer withdrew without responding to my last set of comments. The rejection decision was not accompanied by any negative review either by the second reviewer or by the Associate Editor (who, as Mr. Schneider points out, didn't have the remotest connection to the field). Any explanation I received from him was in the context of personal emails. When I appealed the decision, the responses were almost exclusively from "managerial level" personnel. The Chief Editor did respond with an email into which he had copy-pasted one of the uninformative, boiler-plate rejection criteria from the journal's website.
Leonid Schneider
During my earlier investigation, I have been in contact with Frontiers Executive Editor, Frederick Fenter. Here are his replies to my questions, dated August 19th, 2015, which concern the issues featuring in the main article:
"(1) The members of the Journal's editorial board, as published on the Journal homepage, have complete authority over the content that is published and are completely free of any commercial pressures.
(2) Frontiers employees have well-defined administrative roles, in which they have no mandate or authority concerning the suitability or content of articles and editorial projects, which are entirely with the external editorial boards.
(3) Chief Editors have complete oversight of all manuscripts in their section/journal and can access them at any time; they can intervene and take any action they consider necessary at any time during the review process.
Frontiers Associate Editors are fully qualified to judge the scientific soundness of contributions in their field and to make an "accept" decision on an article. Their names are made public on every paper for which they are responsible, to acknowledge their role and for transparency. To imply otherwise is disrespectful, to say the least. Many journals around the globe allow associate editors to make accept/reject decisions (but without the transparency inherent in Frontiers' processes).
The contact person for journals in the COPE-member database are not required to be a member of the external editorial board.
Editorial independence is a concept focused on the content that a journal publishes, not about whether there is a strong editor in chief calling all the shots. From the WAME definition of editorial independence: "Editorial decisions should be based on the validity of the work and its importance to readers, not the policies or commercial success of the owner. Editors should be free to publish critical but responsible views about all aspects of medicine without fear of retribution." This holds for Frontiers, as stressed above and in many other places.
As Executive Editor, I ensure that the Journal Managers understand their responsibilities, and I address any issues they raise requiring senior managerial input. I provide a senior point of contact for our editors. I have no mandate or authority to decide on content or the validity of any editorial project.
The Frontiers Editor-in-Chief oversees the Frontiers principles and publishing model and appoints Chief Editors, who are proposed for appointment after extensive discussions and research and after assurances that the Chief Editors understand the Frontiers model. He has no mandate or authority over content. Your message states that Dr. Henry Markram is "simultaneously Editor-in-Chief of all Frontiers journals", which is factually incorrect; he is Editor-in-Chief – i.e., a senior manager – of Frontiers as an organization, responsible for its ethical and publishing policies. The Journal Chief Editors, as clearly explained on our journal websites, remain the ultimate editorial authority for their respective Frontiers Journals. All this was explained in detail in our blog post Frontiers acts to defend distributed editorial independence, which can be accessed on our blog (http://blog.frontiersin.org/2015/05/07/frontiers-acts-to-defend-distributed-editorial-independence/).
Your message refers to publication of articles by Dr Kamila Markram and Dr Henry Markram in Frontiers titles. Dr. Kamila Markram does not exert editorial supervision; as mentioned above only the editorial boards have authority over content. Nor does Dr Henry Markram, as editor-in-chief, exert editorial supervision. Both are, however, active researchers, and as such are fully welcome to submit their work to Frontiers. These contributions will be subject to the same independent and external editorial decision process as all other submissions. As one of the world's leading neuroscientists Dr Henry Markram has also been appointed Assistant Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Neuroscience, and in that role he exercises the same authority as any other chief editor over specific articles in whose review he is involved."
Based on Frontiers' guidelines (see below) Chief Editors actually seem to have ultimate and total control over the rejection (and therefore of acceptance) of a manuscript. Only they can endorse a rejection by reviewers and editors. Obviously, not endorsing a rejection is tantamount to acceptance. Why is Frontiers designed this way? Do any other journals give Chief Editors the power to override rejection by reviewers/editors?
"22) Associate Editors can recommend the rejection of an article to the Chief Editor, who needs to check that the authors' rights have been upheld during the peer-review process, and who can then ultimately reject the article if it is of insufficient quality, has objective errors or if the authors were unreasonably unwilling to address the points raised during the review."
Obviously, if reviewers and editors reject an article, they have deemed it of insufficient quality. Again, why does the CE, who likely will not have the necessary expertise, have the power to override this evaluation?
In the case of Frontiers in Medicine, the issue remains that there are none of EiCs and only 3 chief speciality editors (with narrowly defined areas of responsibility) present, while a large number of papers has been published since the editorial mass dismissal in May 2015.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/journal/medicine#editorial-board
http://journal.frontiersin.org/journal/medicine#archive
indeed, chief editors have ultimate power. but this is not a prerogative of Frontiers solely. Frontiers maybe makes it clearer. So the question "why is Frontiers designed this way" is not so pertinent. They chose to be this way, point. Furthermore, no-one is obliged to submit their manuscripts there if they don't want. I never heard any colleague submitting to Frontiers because the paper could not be rejected there (for increased acceptance rate yes, but this is common to so many journals).
Also in the case of Frontiers in Medicine, someone is acting as editor, one way or the other. I don't see anything wrong in that, in the same way I don't see anything wrong in an editor acting as a reviewer (provided that (s)he discloses the joint role of reviewer and editor).
Personally, I don't see Frontiers as a predatory publisher. Actually I am not worried at all by "predatory publishers". All publishers are predatory in a way.
Guillaume Schmidt
Actually, reviewers and editors have very different functions and these should not be mixed. Reviewers do NOT accept or reject manuscripts. Their role is to ADVICE the editors about the quality/suitability of a manuscript. The final responsibility to accept or reject lies with the Editor-in-Chief. As an EIC myself, I have several times rejected manuscripts despite positive reviewer comments, because of deficiencies that were identified by the handling associate editor or myself. The opposite is rarer, but I have seen cases where a reviewer clearly was going over board with his/her criticisms, which I then chose to ignore.
In short: the role of an EIC is much more responsible than just counting "votes" from reviewers. Science is not democratic. Hence the paramount importance of having EICs who have a deep understanding of their fields. Of course, for journals covering a very broad field, the role of the EIC is taken over by associate/specialty editors. The EIC can overrule them, but should only do that in exceptional cases and not without any good reason.
Dear Guillaume, thanks for your comment. At Frontiers, a reviewer can either advice acceptance or provide further demands. The associate editor cannot reject a paper, and can only recommend rejection to EiC or chief speciality editor. At the same time, associate editors are automatically instructed to give authors another chance to reply to reviewer comments, or find replacement reviewer if one withdraws. Frontiers in Medicine lost both EiCs and almost all chief speciality editors. There is basically hardly anyone to issue a rejection. Yet a large number of papers has been published after the mass sacking, since all associate editors, including Fusco(!) are still there and active.
Virginia Barbour
The statement below is COPE's position on Frontiers. We have posted this on our website also.
Like the DOAJ does now, COPE has a rigorous and stringent process for scrutinizing members before they are accepted and we review this process as needed. Frontiers has been a member of COPE since January 2015. In the interests of complete transparency, we note here also that one of the Frontiers staff, Mirjam Curno, is a member of COPE council – a position she was elected to when she was employed at the Journal of the International AIDS Society in 2012 and which continued (with the agreement of the COPE Council and on becoming an Associate Member of COPE) after she moved to Frontiers; she is now also a trustee of COPE. (NB, She was not involved in drafting this statement.)
We note that there have been vigorous discussions about, and some editors are uncomfortable with, the editorial processes at Frontiers. However, the processes are declared clearly on the publisher's site and we do not believe there is any attempt to deceive either editors or authors about these processes.
Publishing is evolving rapidly and new models are being tried out. At this point we have no concerns about Frontiers being a COPE member and are happy to work with them as they explore these new models.
In addition to the above statement I want to make it clear that in accordance with how we handle COIs at COPE, Mirjam Curno was not involved at COPE with the decision about whether or not they were admitted as members.
Dr Virginia Barbour
Chair, COPE
Pingback: Recommended reads #63 | Small Pond Science
All readers of this blog with experiences with students and with assessing the (scientific) output of students will be aware that almost all students are able to work together with the teachers to improve the (scientific) level of their output.
All of you will as well be aware that there is a certain level of quality of the work of students and that it is not allowed to provide a degree to students who are unable to reach this level. So the level of the work of these students can show a high variation, but there is always a lowest possible level. Such students are unable to get a degree. There is a huge variation in level of the different universities. This implies that there is of course also a huge variation in the amount of students who are able to pass the exams (etc.)
The same is of course the case for manuscripts submitted to (peer-reviewed) journals. There is a huge variation in the level of the papers which are accepted and which get published, and there is as well a huge variation in the way how editors, peers and peer-reviewers are working together with the authors to improve the manuscript.
There will however always be a certain proportion of manuscripts of which the scientific level is too low to be published in the journal in question, even with alot of help and guidance of peers and editors. Such papers will be rejected and both the peers and the editors of the journal in question have a high responsibility that such papers are not added to the body of scientific knowledge.
The statements of Anne Simon, professor at the University of Maryland in the USA, and the statements of Tamas Szakmany of Cardiff University in UK are thus in agreement with each other.
(1): No problem as long as the authors are willing to work together with the editors and the reviewers to improve the manuscript and no problem as long as the basic level of (an improved version of) the manuscript is solid.
(2): A big problem (in this case currently on http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ ) because there is no option to reject the (small part of) manuscripts which lack this scientific level.
The option 'withdraw from the process as the authors were clearly not willing to understand' is ridiculous when it comes to assessing the (scientific) output of students.
Two more ridiculous and contradictory things with Frontiers:
–	Frontiers has recently published an article warning from predatory journals while their own journals are considered as predatory journals:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fvets.2015.00022/full
–	There are much more editors than authors: thousands of editors against hundreds articles published!!!
I am not sure why the previous comment says hundreds of articles – their websites states that they have published 38,000 papers.
What is ridiculous though, is the claim that at Frontiers the "very act of sending out a paper for peer review precludes the ability to reject this paper on the basis of the review, should it turn out negative". I am not sure where this rumour started, but it is obviously not true.
This is how it actually works:
a) A manuscript can be desk-rejected without being sent out for review, if it contains obvious and serious problems (similar to most other peer reviewed journals)
b) After a manuscript has been sent out for review, it is not possible to reject it before the authors have had a chance to respond to the reviewers´queries. This procedure is afaik unique to Frontiers – and I think it is a good solution for many reasons. For example, it prevents rejection based on reviewer misreadings.
c) If the authors' rebuttal is deemed unsuccessful by the reviewers they can say so, and the associate editor can then propose that the ms should be rejected. Or if the authors' revisions are deemed successful, the reviewers can endorse publication, and the associate editor can then propose that the ms is accepted. Note that it is the associate editor who makes the decision to recommend accept/reject (like all other journals that I know of, the reviewers give advice to the editors, but the editors make the decisions).
d) The specialty chief editor oversees all decisions about both reject and accept, as a final quality check. I believe this final stage was recently introduced as a response to the critique from the FI Medicine editors (who did not like the idea that associate editors had the power to accept manuscripts).
I meant 'thousands editors per journal". Please take a look at any Frontiers journal and you will see that the number of editors is much higher than the number of articles published so far.
Apparently, they try to make a 'kidding newwork'.
I might as well point out another frequent misunderstanding… It is correct that chief editors get a reward for "each batch of 120 papers submitted to your section in 2015". But do note that it is for papers SUBMITTED and not for papers ACCEPTED. Editors thus have no financial incentive at all to accept papers! I am sure that Schneider did not mean to be intentionally misleading, but on a casual reading it is easy to think the reward is for accepted manuscripts (especially because he writes that the reward "goes hand in hand" with the "high acceptance rate at Frontiers").
Btw, am I the only one who is curious why Beall has not cared to give a motivation for his decision?
Dear fhjij,
I appreciate your concerns, but this is what Frontiers writes on the topic of rejection:
"Submissions can only be rejected by the Chief Editor, while the Associate Editor who handles a manuscript can only recommend to reject a manuscript. The Chief Editor may override an Associate Editor's recommendation to reject the manuscript and insist to call in further reviewers to continue the review process."
This does point towards the systematic preference of acceptance over rejection.
I wish to point out yet again, that Frontiers in Medicine operates utterly without EiCs and largely without chief specialty editors. I am not sure who decides about rejections there now. Previously, the former chief editors claimed to have experienced that papers were accepted without their knowledge of their submission (http://www.labtimes.org/editorial/e_631.lasso).
Also, you mentioned above it is in your view appropriate for handling editors to act as reviewers. Please consider that at Frontiers handling editors can be selected or proposed by the authors themselves. This COI might influence the peer review done by these editors in place of proper, independent reviewers.
In general, it would be very useful to obtain information on Frontiers acceptance/rejection rates. If you have any connection to this publisher, please help me to make this information publicly available.
See also in the article above:
"Meanwhile, Frontiers manages according to own website "54 open access journals, 55,000 editors, 38,000 articles"!!
Kidding network? The journals are large and each contains many specialty sections which all have their own editorial boards, so there is nothing strange about the numbers reported above. Indeed it is the size and quality of the Frontiers editorial (chief and assoc. editors) and reviewer (review editors) boards that make the journals attractive to authors. The better the board, the better the chance to get expert opinions on your manuscript 🙂
Pingback: Join the Committee, ignore Publication Ethics | For Better Science
The 'better' ? What is the "better" in science? And, how do you know whether something is 'better' or not?
Is Drosophila for example better than mouse, Arabidopsis or ape to study genetics? No, there is no better or less good.
The same for editorial board and peer review.
"Good, Better, Best…Worse, Worst etc" all are subjective adjectives particularly in science.
April Tatro-medlin
"Human & Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification", by J. Marvin Herndon, June 30, 2016, PMID:27433467. FOUND AT:. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. RETRACTED. The reviewers name is listed but the review report is kept confidential. The article is also found on the Frontiers in Public Health website. Why wasn't the author allowed to revise to avoid retraction? I find this suspect given the secrecy of the topic.
"Frontiers in Zoology" is published by Biomed Central and "Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology" is published by Elsevier. These journals do not belong to Frontiers Media.
Many thanks, text corrected! My apologies for mistake.
It is also worth clarifying that NPG was never a stakeholder of Frontiers Media. This so called "alliance" is about the Loop project. Now NPG is a part of the company Springer Nature (which is owned by Holtzbrinck). So, Springer Nature and Frontiers Media are two separate and competing companies. In fact, for the Loop project, NPG is a "customer" of Frontiers Media. Meanwhile, Springer Nature gets rid of the NPG and frontiersin journal connections. This however may be still confusing, and has been used for a long time to lure authors, reviewers and editors to Frontiers Media.
MH, thank you for your comment. My present information was based on the facts that:
1. Nature Publishing Group bought a stake in Frontiers in 2013, "the company said it was taking a majority investment but wouldn't say how much that cost": http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/02/nature-publishing-group-buys-into-open-access-publisher.html
2. The current administrative board of Frontiers lists as signatory Michael Brockhaus, Head of Group Strategy at the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group.
Dr. Kamila Markram, co-founder and CEO of Frontiers, in her reply to the concerns raised by Prof. Dorothy Bishop writes at http://deevybee.blogspot.com.es/2015/06/my-collapse-of-confidence-in-frontiers.html the following: "Let me reassure you that the Frontiers process works extremely well for the vast majority of papers that are peer-reviewed. In fact, the paper in question is a good example of how our policy of transparency works. Readers with doubts about a published article, or about potential conflicts of interest, can scrutinize the qualifications of the handling editor and reviewers, as you did, and this will provide useful information for their assessment of the article."
Although Dr. Markram encourages readers to communicate their doubts about potential conflicts of interest with respect to published articles, it would be useful to know that some action is actually taken once such concerns are reported. Following the Frontiers Review Guidelines (http://www.frontiersin.org/Design/pdf/ReviewGuidelines.pdf), concerns about two articles recently published in Frontiers in Psychology were emailed to the Frontiers editorial office. The email was sent on 30/10/15 and the concerns are summarized below:
According to Frontiers Review Guidelines, Frontiers claims to maintain a peer-review process. Some recent incidents seem to suggest that the claimed standards in reviewing are not always met. We see here (http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01082/abstract) a recently published article in Frontiers in Psychology. Upon reading it, we see that the author, both the editors (as it is part of a special issue) and one of the two reviewers all share an affiliation at http://biolinguistics-bcn.info/people/. (**NB. After we reported the issue to Frontiers, this website seems to have deleted much of its content, but check Google cache): Two of them are listed as external members/collaborators and two of them as core members of the same research group. The fact that the editor, one reviewer and the author have recently conducted work together (see the program of this conference http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/bioling/PAVIA2015/program.htm for featuring joint work between the author, the reviewer and the editor or this article http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01463/abstract for joint work between the reviewer and the editor) in a topic that seems related to the topic dealt with in the article is a clear violation of the Frontiers Review Guidelines.
What is even more disturbing is that the above article does not mark a single incident of what looks as a potential failure to adhere to the ethical standards that Frontiers seeks to meet. In another article (http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01355/abstract) in the very same issue of Frontiers, we see that the editors, the author and both reviewers all come from the same research group, listed as either core members or collaborators. The author of the second article mentions in the acknowledgments that "Preparation of this work was supported by funds from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grants FFI2013-43823-P and FFI2014-61888-EXP)". These are grants awarded to the two editors (check Google cache for http://biolinguistics-bcn.info/about/research-lines-and-funding/). This looks like another conflict of interest (point 10 in section 'Financial', page 3 of the Frontiers Review Guidelines).
I hope you see the multiple conflicts of interest that arise in both cases. Given that (i) the peer-review process has been seriously compromised on the above mentioned grounds and (ii) your journal publicly claims that a peer-review process without conflicts of interest is ensured (see Frontiers Review Guidelines), retractions seem necessary. Failure to do so may be subject to various forms of legal action in the European Union (Misleading Advertising, Article 2, Directive 2006/114/EC)."
This email was sent to Frontiers 7 days ago. Given the transparent process that Dr. Markram so enthusiastically advertises, one would expect some kind of (re)action from Frontiers. Even a minimal "thank you for your time. We had no idea but are currently looking into it" would be an indication that some action will be taken and the reported concern is taken seriously. Surprisingly, Frontiers remains silent. No reply. Not a single word. No indication of action. No expression of concern. No appreciation of the fact that readers spent some time to point out apparent conflicts of interest.
Dr. Markram claims that Frontiers' policy of transparency allows readers to "scrutinize the qualifications of the handling editor and reviewers". Well, this scrutinizing is not always easy. It seems that Frontiers permits authors and reviewers to selectively list some of their affiliations (compare http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01082/abstract and http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01355/abstract with http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01463/abstract. Affiliation 3 in the latter is absent from the other two articles even though some of the mentioned individuals were listed as members of the very same group at the time these articles were published).
One wonders: Do people at Frontiers check for potential conflicts of interest before they publish an article? If not, how is the peer-review process maintained uncompromised? More to the (worrying) point, do people at Frontiers take some kind of action when readers alert them about potential conflicts of interest? And, finally, what qualities make a publisher predatory?
Costa Vakalopoulos
A majority of studies in high IF journals not being reproducible does not seem to be a concern because they have titled EiC independence and by Beall's definition are not predatory in turn, because are not oa and therefore not on Beall's list. The real concern here for scientific introspection is that Beall's impulsiveness (although it appears more like the inevitable outcome of a carefully orchestrated agenda over some time) is an attempt to silence a well-regarded and attended platform for scienticifc dissonance, not readily available on traditional pathways of publication. I suspect that Beall has simply compromised the integrity of his otherwise worthwhile eneterprise and that he is largely appealing to a converted group simply by the nature (no pun intended) of their position within a hierarchy that depends on prestige by association.
The manifesto challenging editorial independence against Frontiers is notable not only for what it claims to be an abrogation of editorial independence (a worthwhile cause ), but also for the disappointment of editors who took on a role believeing it would bring them closer to an elite world by association (there is some rant about a dissipating cosy relationship between frontiers and npg). I just wonder if the manifesto would have materialized if Frontiers had fostered the dependence of its reputation on the Nature brand.
There is always room for criticism, no one should stiffle constant checks and balances irrespective of the stated principles on foundation and sure they can be corrupted by monetary inetersts, but Beall shows a short-sighted and pervasive lack of empathy for the cause of innovation in science and the way it is delivered. His effort simply trashes the work of many dedicated scientists who put their integirty at a premium whether editors or authors associated with the journal. As such he has made himself a villain to many.
I received this message from Frontiers today:
"Frontiers in Human Neuroscience was launched in 2008. In just 6 years, it has become the #1 most-cited journal in psychology, the #1 most-cited open access journal dedicated to neuroscience and the 10th most-cited journal in all of neuroscience. It is also the 2nd and 3rd largest journal in all of psychology and neuroscience, respectively."
http://blog.frontiersin.org/2015/11/20/quality-and-impact-analysis-frontiers-in-human-neuroscience/
I still don't have a strong opinion on Frontiers and Open Access, but so far the model seems to be working for me. I have gotten more views in seven weeks for my Frontiers opinion piece than I have in fifteen years for any of my traditionally published essays.
Pingback: Frontiers removes junior peer reviewers | For Better Science
Thank you for the most useful post. As an editor of a Frontiers journal, I agree, several of the points raised are serious, indeed, and should be amended. However, as mentioned above – scientific publishing is going through changes – and hopefully this type of discussion will help to improve and learn, while doing.
Avoiding "hate reviews" by publishing reviewers' names is a relief. Hard to say which is worse – "type 1" or "type 2" errors – greedy publishers letting low quality pass or envious colleagues suppressing high quality material. Will the audience pass the verdict, by means of citations?
Are leading journals being submitted to such scrutiny? Recently, I reviewed an article for a top science journal (IF>10). The handling editor rejected the paper & circulated reviews, all of which were downright negative. Much to my surprise, the paper was published soon after, with only minor modifications, by the very same journal. Is "carte blanche" for famous colleagues – translating to bias and discrimination – any better?
Pingback: Optionally transparent peer review: a major step forward, but which direction? | For Better Science
Pingback: Frontiers Christmas Carol | For Better Science
Pingback: Zombie Scientists – For Better Science
Plantarum
When are scientists and science journalists going to start having a frank and open conversation about the predatory nature of Elsevier, Springer-Nature and Taylor & Francis? Or are they too afraid of these publishers?
Pingback: OA publishers Hindawi vs. Frontiers: similar, yet different – For Better Science
PubPeer continues to manipulate commentary that is critical of Dr. Elizabeth Wager, and protect her.
February 25, 2016, Dr. Wager wrote:
"My PhD was based on my original research publications (not guidelines). I would never consider listing multiple versions or republications on my CV (and, since the CV lists the titles, this would be pretty obvious to anybody, so I can't imagine why one would do it). As I am not an academic, I have no reason to count my publications."
There were three comments in response to that statement, the last one being most important, but basically all requesting information about Dr. Wager's PhD.
"I am sorry to insist about this point, but most academics are conferred a PhD while they are under a supervisor, or a PI. I did a rough calculation: if you obtained your PhD in 210, and you claim that your non-guidance papers counted for the PhD, then I assume that papers published in 2008 to 2009 would be within this subset.
I then went to PubMed, and looked up, after entering Wager E into the search function, your 2009 and 2008 papers which were not "guidance" papers. To my great surprise your company name was written in all papers that I checked.
For example, 3 random examples:
J Med Ethics 2009;35:348-353 doi:10.1136/jme.2008.028324
Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey
E Wager 1, S Fiack 2, C Graf 3, A Robinson 3, I Rowlands 4
Sideview, 19 Station Road, Princes Risborough HP27 9DE, UK
(incidentally no affiliation listed for the other 4 authors at PUbMed, why not?)
However, the original BMJ site lists the affiliations of the last 4 authors as:
1 Sideview, Princes Risborough, UK
2 Wiley-Blackwell, Berlin, Germany
3 Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK
4 UCL Centre for Publishing, University College London, London, UK
What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature?
Gøtzsche PC, Kassirer JP, Woolley KL, Wager E, Jacobs A, Gertel A, Hamilton C.
PLoS Med. 2009 Feb 3;6(2):e23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000023.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634793/pdf/pmed.1000023.pdf
"Elizabeth Wager is at Sideview, Princes Risborough, United Kingdom."
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 8;(4):MR000002.
Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals.
Elizabeth Wager E, Philippa Middleton
doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000002.pub3.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000002.pub3/abstract
1 Sideview, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire, UK
2 The University of Adelaide, ARCH: Australian Research Centre for Health of Women and Babies, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Now I am even more curious than before, Dr. Wager, which academic institute conferred your PhD in 2010, and why do you continue to keep it secret? The public should be able to access a PhD thesis easily, I assume. This is very important because you have stated publicly that you are not an academic yet your waiving your academic title, a PhD, proudly, yet fail to indicate who conferred this title and what papers were used to obtain that title. Since none of your papers carry the name of any academic institute, only your company affiliation, I sense that the problems associated with this hexaduplicate and the lack of conflicts of interest may be reflecting a much larger problem.
So where can we find a copy of your thesis on a public depository? Can you please provide the URL."
Are these libelous questions that should have merited removal from PubPeer, or is it possible that there is collusion between COPE and PubPeer in protecting Dr. Wager's image at the expense of the truth?
Will you be remedying your own undisclosed conflicts of interest at any time?
Bobo.
This very strange defense of Dr. Wager by PubPeer. I believe that this blind defense of what the academic community has perceived as perhaps one of the most ethical individuals in science publishing, was cemented in California's UC Davis in early February:
http://icis.ucdavis.edu/
Elizabeth Wager = Watchdog I
PubPeer's Barndon Snell = Watchdog II
Some in the public tend not to believe this claim. I have thus assembled the proof of PubPeer's "comment moderation".
Wow, that's quite the cabal you've uncovered there by Googling two people's names at the same time. Your detective work is simply outstanding. This is the same kind of nonsense that 9/11 conspiracy theorists rely on. Break out the tin-foil hats.
Have you considered the possibility that your comments were removed because–as someone on the PubPeer thread pointed out–they border on harassment?
And again, I ask, will you be redressing your own missing conflict of interest statements?
Pingback: Frontiers' bread madness – For Better Science
Pingback: Fear and Loathing at Frontiers – For Better Science
Sam Kagawa
AASCIT are complete spammers beware. Recently i sent an article to the American journal of science and technology. After a bogus review they replied they have accepted my article. they asked me to pay article processing charges. The bank transfer address is Hong Kong while the journal is American! I transferred USD 200. After acknowledging the receipt of the money they refused to publish my article. I pleaded with them but since then they refused to reply. The address aascit002@gmail.com. there is no person full name, no address, no contact. Only Gmail address. These are complete spammers. Do not ever send your journal to AASCIT. I have all the evidence of the communication i had with them. If need be i can give you the details.
Pingback: De open acces consumentenbond | I&M / I&O 2.0
Pingback: Conspiracy Theory: Is NPG being assimilated by Frontiers??? – For Better Science
Pingback: The laborious delivery of Markram's brainchild – For Better Science
Nicholas Collin Paul de Gloucester
Guillaume Schmidt:
[. . .] Science is not democratic. [. . .]"
I agree that science is not a democracy but much of what passes for science is alas a popularity contest. There is too much herding amongst persons who dishonestly profess to supposedly be investigators who are not truly careful seekers of truth. Much of the novel "Brave New World" is worth quoting. I quote merely de its third chapter: "Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots!"
Plantarum asked: "When are scientists and science journalists going to start having a frank and open conversation about the predatory nature of Elsevier[. . .]? Or are they too afraid of these publishers?"
On 12/12/2011 a legal-advice organisation in the Netherlands (namely het Juridisch Loket) advised me to contact the "Fraudehelpdesk" (fraude being Dutch for fraud) to make a complaint against Elsevier. I promptly did so. During March 2012 the policeman Mister Hoekman of the Fraudehelpdesk said to me that to proceed I would need to nominate an expert who can fluently confirm in Dutch to a person who is not a technical person that Elsevier perpetrates fraud. I promptly nominated to the Fraudehelpdesk more than one such expert (all of who agreed to testify about this). More than 4 years later I have not heard any more about this.
I type this as I read For Better Science — without access to the Internet therefore I indicate
http://OpenAccess.EPrints.org/index.php?/archives/1160-Netherlands-Boycotting-Elsevier-To-Sustain-Bloat.html
(that has been indicated by Richard Poynder and Leonid Schneider on "Berlin12: closed society at an open access conference" on For Better Science) without having accessed it.
I became aware that Gizem Donmez ( http://retractionwatch.com/?s=Gizem+Donmez+ ) has a Loop profile on the website of publisher Frontiers ( http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/50104/overview ).
This Loop profile states: "Gizem Donmez, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, USA". This information is not in line with information at http://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/16/neuroscientist-who-threatened-to-sue-science-fraud-org-retracted-two-papers-is-out-at-tufts/ : "Gizem Donmez, a neuroscientist who has retracted two papers from Cell and the Journal of Biological Chemistry, is no longer in her position at Tufts University, Retraction Watch has learned. A Tufts spokesperson confirmed the news for us yesterday: 'Dr. Donmez is no longer employed by Tufts University. We don't, as a rule, comment on employee personnel matters.' We've tried to contact Donmez for comment, and will update with anything we learn." (posted 16 October 2014).
The Loop profile of Gizem Donmez currently lists 8 publications. It is not indicated that publication #3 ( http://loop.frontiersin.org/publications/22219275 ) is retracted (see
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/1/124 and http://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/07/image-splicing-duplications-inversions-kill-paper-for-well-known-longevity-researcher-and-alum-of-lab/ ). Also publication #6 at the Loop profile of Gizem Donmez ( http://loop.frontiersin.org/publications/20655472 ) is retracted ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867410006744 and http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/13/cell-retraction-of-alzheimers-study-is-second-for-tufts-neuroscientist/ ). The retration of this publication is not indicated at the Loop profile of Gizem Donmez
Anyone any idea about a relation between publication #1 ( = http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00184/full ) at the Loop profile of Gizem Donmez and between http://retractionwatch.com/2013/08/13/authors-withdraw-already-corrected-jbc-paper-questioned-on-pubpeer/ and http://www.jbc.org/content/287/39/32307.short ?
The Loop profile of Lei Liu, the first author of publication #1 at the Loop profile of Gizem Donmez, lists
a recent publication of Gizem Donmez, see http://loop.frontiersin.org/publications/44323022 and http://benthamscience.com/journals/current-neuropharmacology/volume/14/issue/2/page/143/ This 2016 publication is currently not listed on the Loop profile of Gizem Donmez.
The Loop profile of Gizem Donmez also lists: "Editorial Roles, Guest Associate Editor for Frontiers in
Aging Neuroscience". See http://journal.frontiersin.org/journal/aging-neuroscience
What a surprise, Klaas. Some background about Dönmez, who is now actually a tenured faculty member in Turkey: https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/zombie-scientists/#comment-227
As you noticed, she is editor with Frontiers, but Guest Associate Editor: http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/50104/overview
Pingback: Frontiers reviewer told: don't be strict, endorse paper, reports Giulia Liberati – For Better Science
Pingback: July, 2016- Stamps for science, Beall vs. Frontiers, Ghostbusters, Taleb on Wolfram, and Hillary's laugh line | monthlyintelligencer
Pingback: Beall-listed Frontiers empire strikes back – For Better Science
Pingback: April Fools: Elsevier pledges integrity, sacks Marcus, Horton – For Better Science
Pingback: Retiran experimento 'psíquico' de revista neurocientífica; magufos lloran – MagufoBusters™
Pingback: The Fantasy of Connecting Two Spinal Cords ⋆ Epeak . Independent news and blogs
Pingback: The Fantasy of Connecting Two Spinal Cords – E Newspaper
Pingback: The Fantasy of Connecting Two Spinal Cords - Press News Reporter
Pingback: The Fantasy of Connecting Two Spinal Cords – BlogON
Pingback: The Fantasy of Connecting Two Spinal Cords - World Fast News
Pingback: 有人把《星战》里的"纤原体"扯成了论文,还真有科学期刊发布了 – 站点标题
Pingback: Frontiers: vanquishers of Beall, publishers of bunk – For Better Science
Pingback: Editor sacked over rejection rate: "not inline with Frontiers core principles" – For Better Science
grindulu interior
Pingback: Robert-Jan Smits: scholarly societies "will have to bite the bullet and go open access" – For Better Science
FrontiersLESS
A little after Frontiers has started, the papers of Opinions, Commentaries, etc. were free of charge. A guy told me that Frontiers editorial office has asked some of its editors to reject papers when these were free because they do not generate money! So, some time later, Frontiers applied fees on these paper categories to maximize its profits.
Frontiers is a money-focus publisher more than a science-focus publisher. Otherwise, it would not apply fees on Opinion papers.
At Frontiers, everything is made to maximize profit. A greedy publisher. Period.
Pingback: 鳳梨能減緩飛蚊症?一些合理的懷疑 – 科科儲思盆
Leave a Reply to Leonid Schneider Cancel reply
Leonid Schneider on Deliferate misteaks by Tradion…
Leonid Schneider on Fixing science: with climate d…
lhac on Fixing science: with climate d…
Climate denier front… on Fixing science: with climate d…
Morty on Deliferate misteaks by Tradion…
Deliferate misteaks by Tradional Chinese Medicine
Fixing science: with climate denial, misogyny and white supremacism?
Milton Prabu's outsourced art gallery
Magic crystals and Nobel Science rules
Euroimmun: Graphic Art, Made in Germany
Zombie fingers inside corroded nano-piecrusts
Aguzzi and the Lowlifes
Reddy vs JBC
Catherine Verfaillie, the Zombie Scientist of KU Leuven
Become my Patreon patron!
Leonid Schneider is creating Independent Science Journalism
Enter your email address to follow For Better Science and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Lawyering-up
Megaproject
Research Reproducibility
Scamferences
Smut Clyde
University Affairs
academia academic evaluation ageing Ashutosh Tiwari biochemistry biomaterials Biotech cancer research cardiology Carlos Lopez-Otin Catherine Jessus Cell cell biology Cell Press chemistry China Clare Francis clinical trial CNRS conflict of interest data manipulation developmental biology DFG diabetes Elisabeth Bik Elsevier ERC European Union France Frontiers funding Germany Heike and Thorsten Walles India industry Italy Karolinska Lancet Martin Birchall medicine misconduct nanotechnology Nature Nature Publishing Group neuroscience Olivier Voinnet open access open data Paolo Macchiarini Patrice Dunoyer peer review Philipp Jungebluth physiology plagiarism plant sciences politics post-publication peer review predatory publishing Pseudoscience regenerative medicine retraction Russia Science Smut Clyde Sonia Melo Spain stem cells Sweden Switzerland TigerBB8 transparency UCL United Kingdom United States whistleblowing
The rise and fall of an antivax paper, by Smut Clyde
Manchester: "research misconduct concerned only one member of the research group"
The Kathrin Maedler Dynasty
Archives Select Month January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015
Citizens For Responsible Care and Research (CIRCARE) A patient advocacy and human rights organisation
Open and Shut? Blog by independent journalist Richard Poynder
Gid M-K; Health Nerd Medium page of Gid MK on health and nutrition
Microbiome Digest A daily digest of scientific microbiome papers, by Elisabeth Bik
PSBLAB Blog by Paul S. Brookes, scientist and whistleblower
Ferniglab Blog Personal blog of Dave Fernig, thoughts on science and unrelated matters
Science Integrity Digest New Blog by Elisabeth Bik, on research integrity!
Nick Brown's blog Blog by data thug Nick Brown
Retraction Watch Watchdogging site where some of my reporting features unreferenced.
Scientist Sees Squirrel Blog by evolutionary ecologist and entomologist Stephen Heard
Riddled A site where Smut Clyde and others blog about strange science and other issues
Neuroskeptic Discover Magazine Blog by Neuroskeptic
Follow For Better Science on WordPress.com
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Wordpress Cookie Policy

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Talks for groups and conferences.
"She has become for me a true source of support and well being."
I use this page as a diary page to highlight forthcoming courses and events. For more information, please contact me or click on a specific link.
The next EFT workshops and courses are in French. You can find details here.


You can visit Jennifer Convertibles at 8812 Queens Blvd Elmhurst by clicking the "View Larger Map" link below. Here you can also get driving directions. If you feel we have miscategorized Jennifer Convertibles and they shouldn't be in the Furniture category, please click the "New Category" button below. You may wish to view other businesses in our Home or Furniture categories. To do so click the links above. Reviews for Jennifer Convertibles can be found by clicking the "Read Merchant Reviews" link to the right. You can add your own review as well! The business Jennifer Convertibles, located at 8812 Queens Blvd Elmhurst in New York City is one of the many businesses found in our Home category.


text:
Q: Header using HTTP Ionic is different header PHP I'm trying send a request in Ionic using @angular/http
By side on the server (nodejs) I'm print the req.header
When request is via PHP/Postman/curl/Ionic Server Proxy added, the header is:
{
        "accept": "*/*",
        "accept-encoding": "gzip, deflate",
        "access_token": "foo",
        "cache-control": "no-cache",
        "connection": "keep-alive",
        "content-length": "0",
        "content-type": "application/json",
        "host": "localhost:8081",
        "login": "11111111111",
        "postman-token": "72260d7c-6bd8-449a-95a7-290bf44bc61d",
        "senha": "1234",
        "user-agent": "PostmanRuntime/7.3.0"
    }

But when I send request using Ionic Http request the header is:
{
        "accept": "text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8",
        "accept-encoding": "gzip, deflate",
        "accept-language": "pt-BR,pt;q=0.8,en-US;q=0.5,en;q=0.3",
        "access-control-request-headers": "access_token,content-type,login,senha",
        "access-control-request-method": "POST",
        "cache-control": "no-cache",
        "connection": "keep-alive",
        "host": "localhost:8081",
        "origin": "http://localhost:8100",
        "pragma": "no-cache",
        "user-agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62.0"
    }

Why the very differences? My server it's work with first header.
Anybody helper me?
PHP REQUEST
<?php

$curl = curl_init();

curl_setopt_array($curl, array(
  CURLOPT_URL => "http://localhost:8081/api/card/login/",
  CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER => true,
  CURLOPT_ENCODING => "",
  CURLOPT_MAXREDIRS => 10,
  CURLOPT_TIMEOUT => 30,
  CURLOPT_HTTP_VERSION => CURL_HTTP_VERSION_1_1,
  CURLOPT_CUSTOMREQUEST => "POST",
  CURLOPT_HTTPHEADER => array(
    "Cache-Control: no-cache",
    "Content-Type: application/json",
    "access_token: foo",
    "login: 11111111111",
    "senha: 1234"
  ),
));

$response = curl_exec($curl);
$err = curl_error($curl);

curl_close($curl);

if ($err) {
  echo "cURL Error #:" . $err;
} else {
  echo $response;
}

IONIC REQUEST
var headers = new Headers({
            'Content-Type': 'application/json',
            'senha': '1234',
            'login': '11111111111',
            'access_token': 'foo'
        })

        let options = new RequestOptions({
            headers: headers,
            method: RequestMethod.Post,
            withCredentials: true
        })

        this.httpClient.post("http://localhost:8081/api/card/login/", {}, options).subscribe(data => {
            console.log(data['_body'])
        }, error => {
            console.error('API Error : ', error.status)
            console.error('API Error : ', JSON.stringify(error))
        })

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I think it's 'possible' after all..
I've added command "fixup protocol pptp 1723" and it works.
>> address per GRE tunnel.
>> 1210 N. Parker Rd.
>> cchurch at netcogov.com  <-note new address!
>> trafic it only makes the "connection".
>> sorry for the confusion, Im trying to configure PAT to translate GRE.
>> available for other protocol (such as gre, protocol 47)?
>> To: "Nicolaj Ottsen" <no at webpartner.dk>; "Rey Martin"
>>> Sorry, wrong syntax, leave out the "ip" in the static command.
>>>> interface, just a free public IP address from your external pool.
>>>> You can translate either tcp or udp and any port.


text:
The Geeky PM
The Death Star is No Match for the Iron Triangle
December 11, 2015 thegeekypm	Leave a comment
Image Source = starwars.wikia.com
"I want it now!" Veruca Salt, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
It looms over all of our efforts – whether it's a home improvement project, school project, or industry program – the Iron Triangle is there. To the simplest terms, it appears as a choice among Good, Fast, and Cheap, and you only pick two options. To those in the project management field, we know its true names – Time, Cost, and Scope – and we know it to be a balance among all three.
In Star Wars – Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, the Death Star II is already under construction. Moff Tiaan Jerjerrod is the project manager in charge of the overall Death Star II project. The primary stakeholder of the project is Emperor Palpatine, who has sent Darth Vader as a proxy to find new ways to motivate the project team.
Image Source = reggiestake.com
As Vader arrives on the landing platform, Jerjerrod is there to greet him. They dispense with the pleasantries, and Vader informs the project manager that the primary stakeholder is displeased with the lack of progress. Jerjerrod responds by commenting that what the Emperor has requested is impossible and he needs more men to do the job.
The Iron Triangle, sometimes referred to as the triple constraint, outlines the limitations on a project as it relates to Scope, Cost, and Time. As there is no direct correlation to these three areas, they each have a different influence on the project. A project that has its scope clearly identified may cost a great deal in resources that must be purchased at great cost to meet a particular schedule.
Image Source = wikipedia.com
The Death Star II, though spherical in shape, is no exception to the Iron Triangle, which affects its project management. The scope of the project is clearly defined as the construction of a battle station according to the specifications. The project timeline that the Emperor had given to Moff Jerjerrod to manage was not being met, which is why Vader was sent. The resources, both material components as well as manpower to execute the work, according to the project manager, was insufficient to achieve the originally committed timeline.
Good project managers always know that they must check-in with their stakeholders to review and manage expectations. If Moff Jerjerrod had been more direct with the Emperor about the schedule slippage due to a lack of manpower, as he was with Lord Vader, the Emperor could have assigned more men to the project and thereby enabled Jerjerrod to complete the project on schedule.
We know that the Emperor had sent a legion of his best men to act as the guardians of the base on Endor, immediately below the Death Star's construction area. Most military units have mechanics, technicians, and other teams that could be leveraged in a construction effort. Assuming that the men sent to guard the moon base were equally capable as construction crews, what would have happened if that legion was utilized in construction efforts rather than standing around on guard duty?
Due to a lapse in the project's management, there were vulnerabilities that may have contributed to the Rebel Alliance's victory. Had the battle station been already complete, perhaps the Rebels would not have dared attack. If the schedule outlined that the areas associated to the power core were supposed to be protected from starfighter attack at the time the Emperor arrived, then the risk to the station would have been mitigated. Perhaps there would not have even been a Battle of Endor, which would have saved an estimated one million lives on both sides of the fight.
The Iron Triangle is a malleable tool that can be used to justify changes to a project that has already been started. If a project requires more resources, as the Death Star II project did, then perhaps the Emperor could have given the Moff more men to catch up to the committed timeline. If the Emperor was not in a hurry to blow up a particular planet, he could have delayed his arrival at the Death Star II, which would have delayed the Rebel attack – as he knew that he was the primary target of their aggression. The scope of the project that Moff Jerjerrod was responsible for did not change, but the environmental conditions around the project did.
Ultimately, any project can fail if the elements of the Iron Triangle are not balanced correctly. The internal project management of the Death Star II did not account for these factors and the Empire was behind schedule. Not even the mighty Death Star was able to break the rules outlined by the Iron Triangle.
Star WarsProject Managementiron triangletriple constraintdeath starscopeschedulecost
Previous PostTransition Planning for Jedis, Bounty Hunters, Chancellors and Project ManagersNext Post6 Times I've Used Star Wars to Talk About Project Management (So Far)
Agile Alias Community Connections Consultants Consulting Contractors cost Cutover death star Decision Making Governance Councils HIMYM How I Met Your Mother Independence Day Information Share iron triangle Jedi Justified Knowledge Transfer LinkedIn Management Mockingjay Networking Pacific Rim Project Governance Project Management Recommendations RoboCop schedule scope Staff Augmentation Star Trek Star Wars Superman Terminator The A-Team The Hobbit The Hunger Games The Walking Dead Transformers Transition Planning triple constraint X-Men
Retraining like Jamie Lannister for LinkedIn's New Desktop Experience
Understanding Software Project Testing from The Flash
6 Times I've Used Star Wars to Talk About Project Management (So Far)
Transition Planning for Jedis, Bounty Hunters, Chancellors and Project Managers


Here are three ways protect your portfolio as the Fed prepares to wind down almost six years of quantitative easing.
Not surprisingly, the U.S. dollar rallied following the Fed's minutes.
Since the start of 2013, the dollar is the top performing G10 currency, rising in both risk-off and risk-on situations. The ICE Dollar index (FX: USDX) is up some 6% year-to-date, an upward trajectory that is expected to continue.
"Currencies have been held hostage by QE over the last few years," Societe General said in its recent Multi Asset Portfolio report. "Our FX strategist expects the U.S. dollar to rise against all the major currencies by the end of the year, including the euro."
Currency trading is fast and volatile, with money made and lost in seconds. At the same time, currencies can exhibit major trends lasting days, weeks or years.
PowerShares DB 3X Long US Dollar Index Futures ETN due Oct. 31, 2020 (NYSE: UUPT) allows investors bet on rising greenbacks via a less volatile trading vehicle. The exchange traded product has a market cap of $4.42 million; daily volume is roughly 207,000; and its 52-week range is $19.29-$23.70.
A wager on a falling euro is another way to take advantage of a rising dollar. ProShares UltraShort Euro ETF (NYSE: EUO) is one option.
When the Fed does take the first step to reduce QE, it will occur when the central bank sees significant and sustainable improvement in the overall economy and job market.
That's good news for cyclical stocks like auto manufacturers, airlines, steel, paper, heavy machinery and hospitality companies. When the economy is growing, cyclical stocks often surpass expectations.
And it pays to jump in early. Many in the sector start to show signs of improvement months before an economic upswing. Data from S&P IQ Capital shows the best time to buy this sector is just before interest rates rise, a period when cyclicals tend to outperform growth stocks.
Some cyclical funds include S&P Industrial Select Sector SPDR (NYSE: XLI), PowerShares Dyn Leisure & Ent (NYSE: PEJ), Market Vector Steel ETF (NYSE: SLX), iPath Dow Jones UBS Copper Total Return Sub Index ETN (NYSE: JJC) and First Trust Exchange Traded Fund II (NYSE: CARZ) an auto ETF.
History shows U.S. economic recoveries have a positive effect overseas. The case for tapering QE is an improving American economy, hence ripple effects abroad are expected.
"Euro zone equities are more cyclical by composition and full of international companies which should benefit from positive news from the U.S.," SocGen analysts said.
Investors get broad based exposure with iShares MSCI EMU Index (NYSE: EZU), which measures the performance of countries in the Eurozone. Country specific ETFs include: iShares MSCI Germany Index Fund (NYSE: EWG); iShares MSCI France Fund (NYSE: EWQ), and iShares MSCI Sweden Index Fund (NYSE: EWD).


After 8 years the band finally releases a new album called 'Speak In Storms', and this is by far the best album they ever made. Catchy rhythms, nice synths, it's a mix of club, electro and dance. The openings track 'For Life' is brilliant, opening slowly, and then building up to a great electronic climax. Also the lyrics will not leave you uninterested , it's a balance between heartbreak and revenge. There is even room on this album for some slow, but catchy songs, 'Liberty rose', 'Liar', or 'Black Feathers', again with nice lyrics and vocals. Although you can say this is a real futurepop album, it still is variable in sounds and rhythms, a song like 'Everything' could easily be from a band like VNV Nation, nice beats and very danceable, and 'Nothing But Love' would be the perfect single from this album.


Directed by Will Hindmarsh & Justin Heazlewood.
Music by Boards of Canada.
Directed by Alesh Macak & Justin Heazlewood.
Directed by Nikos Andronicos. Part of ABC's 'Fresh Blood' initiative.
Filmed at the Thornbury Theatre, Melbourne.
Live on ABC's Spicks & Specks.
Performing for ABC's Drive show in Bunbury, WA.
Performing on the 86 Tram as part of Melbourne Music.
Brown & Orange album launch at the Corner Hotel, Melbourne.
Directed by Dan Ilic & Justin Heazlewood.


text:
Difference between revisions of "Meeting 2020-03-31"
From Hack Manhattan Wiki
Robby O'Connor (Talk | contribs)
m (→Terminating membership of and banning Charlie from the space)
Guan (Talk | contribs)
m (→Implement and adopt a CoC (Code of Conduct))
=== Implement and adopt a CoC (Code of Conduct) ===
"Be 3Xc3LL3nT tO 3aCh oTh3r" as a hacker "one rule"/mantra just doesn't work. It didn't work at Noisebridge, it doesn't work at maker/hacker cons. A CoC Creation Committee needs to get down and work on a CoC and reporting mechanism to be established either by this meeting or the next. A CoC Committee that handles reports and any related administrivia needs to be established, and it can be comprised of the creation committee and/or the board for now.
"Be 3Xc3LL3n7 t0 3aCh 0Th3r" as a hacker "one rule"/mantra just doesn't work. It didn't work at Noisebridge, it doesn't work at maker/hacker cons. A CoC Creation Committee needs to get down and work on a CoC and reporting mechanism to be established either by this meeting or the next. A CoC Committee that handles reports and any related administrivia needs to be established, and it can be comprised of the creation committee and/or the board for now.
* HacDC which we were originally modeled after has an [https://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php?title=Anti-Harassment_Policy Anti-Harrassment Policy] which is based on example policy from [https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment Geek Feminism]. They also have a [http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/NormsOfHacDC Norms document] which includes [http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/NormsOfHacDC#Expectations Expectations] and [http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/NormsOfHacDC#Disruption Disruption] sections, although it doesn't look like it was voted upon.
1 Consensus Agenda
1.1 T-shirt pricing
1.2 Shway and Chaz's Birthday and HM Summer Combo Party
1.3 Proposal to unschedule Thursday public nights
1.4 There should be no phone in the space
1.5 Deputy treasurers
1.6 Terminating membership and banning banning mz from HM
1.7 Terminating membership of and banning Charlie from the space
1.8 Implement and adopt a CoC (Code of Conduct)
2 New Business
2.1 Formerly on Consensus Agenda
2.2 Sponsored Members Induction
3 Member Reports
3.1 Board Reports
3.1.1 President's Report
3.1.2 Treasurer's Report
3.1.3 Secretary's Report
3.1.4 Directors-at-Large's Report
3.2 Member and Project Reports
3.3 Results
4 Meeting Meta
Consensus Agenda
T-shirt pricing
T-shirts will be sold for $20, payment by PayPal only, other payment methods on case-by-case basis
Shway and Chaz's Birthday and HM Summer Combo Party
We will have this party on July 29th or an adjacent weekend. Possibly renting Secret Loft. Any expenses to be proposed later.
Proposal to unschedule Thursday public nights
As proposed in the conversation on the members slack channel. The idea is that reducing our public nights to once a week would alleviate some of the stress faced by the current membership in having to host/be responsible for guests.
There should be no phone in the space
HM or members would have to start paying for the service soon. It's not that much money, a few dollars per month. But if members don't want to receive phone calls, then its only use would be on average one outgoing call per month, and it's another physical object that takes up space and needs to be maintained (or at least someone needs to know how it works).
Deputy treasurers
Add Rule 12 to the rules:
The board may appoint and remove one or more members as deputy treasurers, and the members may remove the same or disqualify members from such appointments. If deputy treasurers are appointed, the treasurer and deputy treasurers serve together as the Treasury Expert Group under such rules and procedures as may be prescribed by the board from time to time. The board may grant deputy treasurers signing authority over the corporation's bank accounts, and other similar powers.
Terminating membership and banning banning mz from HM
mz accused several members of racism, sexism and transphobia and subsequently lobbied for their banning. mz does not understand jokes. It led to the insinuation that he is a Maoist dictator and HR when he was still part of the board. He yelled at people if he felt members severely overstepped boundaries, even during an open house incident in which he accused a member of making racist jokes targeting a member that had previously mentioned that he was targeted by such jokes before. His board membership prevented a "diversity of thought" on the board leading to problematic relationship between the board and the membership. He does not accept explanations for repeated missteps. This situation needs to be resolved. mz hereby proposes the termination of mz's membership and subsequent permanent banning from the space.
being a dick by wasting meeting time trying to get himself banned --Guan (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Terminating membership of and banning Charlie from the space
Charlie has been problematic since he joined the space. There was an attempt to terminate his membership and it failed prior. This time, we want to illustrate that there was a pattern of and unwillingness to change his behavior. In one incident he used a racial epithet recently in a conversation. Couple this with the complaints from the prior attempt, it establishes a pattern of behavior. His past behavior is included when considering this proposal.
However, it is believed that he can change but warrants a temporary ban from the space.
therefore, he would be banned from the space for a period of 6 months -- he can reapply for membership after that period.
Implement and adopt a CoC (Code of Conduct)
HacDC which we were originally modeled after has an Anti-Harrassment Policy which is based on example policy from Geek Feminism. They also have a Norms document which includes Expectations and Disruption sections, although it doesn't look like it was voted upon.
Double Union Policies/Code of Conduct. One thing they were mindful of were white supremacy culture traps.
Noisebridge stilll tries to operate under their One Rule (TM), but they also have Community Standards and an anti-harassment policy. Some sections to consider in their documentation are some bits and pieces from their General Guidelines, but especially their Requests to Leave, copied below:
Requests to Leave
If someone is acting in a way incompatible with our community standards, you are empowered to ask them to leave Noisebridge immediately.
(This emphasis is mine) You are under no obligation to do ask someone to leave, and absolutely should not confront someone who you think poses a physical danger to you. Please ask for help if you feel you need or want help.
If someone asks you to leave Noisebridge, you should immediately leave, whether or not you think their request was legitimate or in good faith.
If someone asks you to leave, you should not return until the conflict has been resolved, hopefully through mediation.
Formerly on Consensus Agenda
Sponsored Members Induction
For each prospective member, please confirm no later than Thursday before the meeting:
Has the member visited 3 times at the regular Tuesday and Thursday open nights?
Has the member received the briefing? When, and who was the briefer?
Has the member's bio and photo been circulated on the members list? (not just blabber)
Member Reports
Board Reports
Treasurer's Report
Secretary's Report
Directors-at-Large's Report
Member and Project Reports
Meeting Meta
Called to order at
The meeting was adjourned at
Minutes taken and submitted by
Proxies:
Retrieved from "https://wiki.hackmanhattan.com/index.php?title=Meeting_2020-03-31&oldid=7492"
About Hack Manhattan Wiki


Other desired technical skills include Perl, Ruby and Python.
Experience working with relational databases, and distributed computing technologies.
Debugging and troubleshooting skills, with an enthusiastic attitude to support and resolve problems.


We are fully equipped and staffed to deal with emergencies and please remember we will see your pet in case of an emergency as a matter of urgency and given a priority to be seen.
Appointments for emergencies are not necessary or possible in many circumstances but if there is the possibility of a phone call before arriving this will help us plan and prepare for the arrival of your pet.
Out of normal opening hours after 6.00pm and before 7.30am we have an after-hours emergency answering service. By ringing 3264 1222 you will get a message with an instant option to go direct through to the emergency service and they will be able to help or direct you as necessary. It may be necessary to direct you to an emergency after-hours Centre.
If it is possible for less urgent cases we might be able to get you in touch with a vet. If that is not possible at the time then the other possibility is to speak with trained emergency and critical care staff at one of the emergency service providers.
If you have a less critical patient then it can be dropped at the surgery after 7.30am for a nurse admission and a vet will examine your pet when they arrive at 8.30am.