On 2012-12-18, at 8:26 PM, Roddy Macleod <macleod.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
*Editors with publishing and library experience, available to do the > background work, and backed up with scholarly reviewers - sounds OK to me. > * "Please support us in our efforts. We need submissions and we need volunteers to review them in their areas of expertise. Both can be done by registering with Social Sciences Directory as a User." http://www.socialsciencesdirectory.com/index.php/socscidir/article/view/32/69 (1) Is this what was meant by peer review at Heriot-Watt University? (2) Is this how Heriot-Watt University would have assessed whether there is a niche or need for a new peer-reviewed journal? (3) Is this how Heriot-Watt University would have assessed a new journal's quality in deciding whether to subscribe to it? (4) Would Heriot-Watt University consider it OK for journals to be selected (by authors, subscribers, or "members") on the basis of their economic model rather than their quality? No question that there are and always were bottom-rung journals among subscription journals too: Difference was that they did not have the extra allure of OA and Gold Fever; they were not subscribed to by institutions if there was no empty subject niche they were filling, nor before they had established their track-records for quality. And journals could not cover their start-up costs by tempting authors to publish with them by paying for it, again seasoned with the extra allure of OA and Gold Fever, and perhaps of quick and easy acceptance for publication. (Needy start-up subscription journals lowering quality standards to fill the need for submissions would simply reduce their chances of getting subscriptions -- but this does not necessarily lower the chances of tempting needy authors to pay-to-publish in OA start-up journals -- and especially before the journal's quality record is established, when all a fool's gold start-up needs for legitimacy is to wrap itself in the mantle of OA and righteous indignation against the "tyranny of the impact factor" unfairly favouring established journals…) As I have said many times, institutions are free to part themselves from their spare money in any way they like. But if they claim they're doing it for the sake of OA, they had better mandate Green OA (effectively) first -- otherwise (as long as they are double-paying, over and above their uncancelable subscriptions) they are in the iron pyrite market. (And encouraging this, blindly, is one of the perverse effects of Finch Folly.) Stevan Harnad On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:26 PM, LIBLICENSE <liblice...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Roddy Macleod <macleod.ro...@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:56:25 +0000 > > This discussion seems well over the top. > > Editors with publishing and library experience, available to do the > background work, and backed up with scholarly reviewers - sounds OK to > me. The SSD website looks well organised (and a lot better and easier > to use than some I've seen). And, for goodness sakes - it's a > startup! > > Something more relevant to warn against? How about all the 'predatory > journals' http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ and the 'Criminal > Impersonation' of faked postings > > > http://lisnews.org/listed_predatory_publishers_fight_back_with_criminal_impersonation > > Or the rubbish stuff from some established journal publishers: > > > http://roddymacleod.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/rubbish-stuff-from-publishers-6/ > > http://roddymacleod.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/journal-publishers-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-i-name-names/ > > Roddy MacLeod > > On 18 December 2012 00:08, LIBLICENSE <liblice...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatc...@alumni.princeton.edu> > > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:49:22 -0600 > > > > Is there a list of these 100 registered reviewers publicly posted > > anywhere? And why are reviewers "registered" anyway? Normally, a > > journal goes to find the best reviewer anywhere, not just limit the > > selection to a predetermined list. For a journal that claims to cover > > all of the social sciences, 100 would seem to be a severely inadequate > > number to draw upon. > > > > Sandy Thatcher > > > > > > > From: Dan Scott <dan.sc...@socialsciencesdirectory.com> > > > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:11:53 +0000 > > > > > > Stevan: A correction: as the press release and our editorial policy > > > make clear, we carry out a full peer review. We also have over 100 > > > registered referees. > > > > > > Dan Scott >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
