Dear Wouter, There is a lot to say in support of more tranparency. For any system to succeed it will need wide adoption. So perhaps Elsevier and Thomson Reuters could join forces here and decide on a commonly used system to be comprehensively available in Scopus as well as WoS and preferably on a open platform (Scimago? DOAJ?) as well.
A problem will be the nested nature of this star rating. What about e.g. qualifying for 5 but not for 4 stars when a jounal has open but anonymous review reports? And there are other examples where this nesting will prove to be problematic. Why not just publish the transparency data without turining them into a ranking or rating system? Of course the data should be available for downloading, filtering, sorting etc. best, Jeroen PS Personally I would also applaud Scopus if it used paper/chapter submittance dates instead of or along with publication years. Publication years are often not very useful for dating content. Op 23 dec. 2013 om 22:12 heeft "Gerritsma, Wouter" <wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl<mailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl>> het volgende geschreven: Dear Claire and other members of OASPA, COPE, DOAJ & WAME Paper is patient. Journal will explain that they do peer review, double blind, whatever you wish. But I think you should award journals for their degree in transparency for the peer review process. http://wowter.net/2013/12/24/towards-five-stars-transparent-pre-publication-peer-review/ Yours sincerely Wouter Gerritsma From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Claire Redhead Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41 To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org> Subject: [GOAL] Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing The Committee on Publication Ethics<http://publicationethics.org/?>, the Directory of Open Access Journals<http://www.doaj.org/>, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association<http://oaspa.org/>, and the World Association of Medical Editors<http://www.wame.org/> are scholarly organizations that have seen an increase in the number of membership applications from both legitimate and non-legitimate publishers and journals. Our organizations have collaborated in an effort to identify principles of transparency and best practice that set apart legitimate journals and publishers from non-legitimate ones and to clarify that these principles form part of the criteria on which membership applications will be evaluated. This is a work in progress and we welcome feedback on the general principles and the specific criteria. Please see the full statement<http://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing/> on the OASPA blog (http://oaspa.org/blog/). Claire Redhead Membership & Communications Manager Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, OASPA http://oaspa.org/ _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
