Dear Yves and others, Of course journals evolve, almost everything does: companies, political parties etc. But no one would suggest not to set up a new company or poliitcal party but rather wait for the existing ones to adopt what you think is necessary. Just like it is normal for journals to evolve, it is normal for new jourals to arrive on the scene and also for some journals to disappear. We could indeed go through the list of 23,000 jornals in Scopus, and that's probably just half of scholarly journals out there, and we will find that most have not adopted the bulk of the characteristics I mentioned. Especially journals that are OA with low or medium APC and options for open and/or post-pub peer review are rare.
Best, Jeroen Op 6 apr. 2015 om 08:30 heeft "Gingras, Yves" <gingras.y...@uqam.ca<mailto:gingras.y...@uqam.ca>> het volgende geschreven: Helllo Journals do evolve: they already did by going on-line and -- for many -- paperless. Many are continuous already trough "online first, etc. Most of the elements on your list can be incorporated in the future without problems. I will not go through it one by one for it would be tedious, but becoming "other" is what evolution do... Yves Gingras ________________________________ De : goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] de la part de Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nl<mailto:j.bos...@uu.nl>] Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 08:46 À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers Dear Yves and others, Of course we could discuss what “a hierarchy of legitimate journals” is and whether one should base submission decisions on such hierarchies. But that would be another thread I think. What concerns me here is your question on the need for more journals. Overall I would agree that we do not need more journals. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the current journals suffice. We need *other* journals. For instance, in the field I serve (human geography) there is a dire need for journals with these characteristics: - fully Open Access - online only - CC-BY license - authors retain copyright - maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model like that at PeerJ) - APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries) - really international profile of editors/board (far beyond US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR) - no issues: continuous publishing - in principle no size restrictions - using ORCID and DOI of course - peer review along PLOS One idea: only check for (methodological) soundness (and whether it is no obvious garbage or plagiarism), avoiding costly system of multiple cascading submissions/rejections - post pub open non anonymous peer review, so the community decides what is the worth of published papers - peer review reports themselves are citable and have DOIs - making (small) updates to articles possible (i.e. creating an updated version) - making it easy to link to additional material (data, video, code etc.) shared via external platforms like Zenodo or Figshare - no IF advertising - open for text mining - providing a suite of article level metrics - using e.g. LOCKSS or Portico for digital preservation - indexing at least by Google Scholar and DOAJ, at a later stage also Scopus, Web of Science and others - optionally a pre-print archive (but could rely on SSRN as well) I would call them forward looking Open Access journals. They are just not present in the English language in my field. And that may be true for many other field. Would you agree that we do not need *more* journals but that we do still need *other* journals? Kind regards, Jeroen <image003.jpg> 101 innovations in scholarly communication<http://innoscholcomm.silk.co/> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University Library<http://www.uu.nl/library> email: j.bos...@uu.nl<mailto:j.bos...@uu.nl> telephone: +31.30.2536613 mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht web: Jeroen Bosman<http://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx> twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU profiles: : Academia<http://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman> / Google Scholar<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IAAAAJ&hl=en> / ISNI<http://www.isni.org/0000000028810209> / Mendeley<http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/> / MicrosoftAcademic<http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman> / ORCID<http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5796-2727> / ResearcherID<http://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253D&Init=Yes&SrcApp=CR&returnCode=ROUTER.Success&SID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK> / ResearchGate<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/> / Scopus<http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484> / Slideshare<http://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero> / VIAF<http://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/> / Worldcat<http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619> blogging at: I&M 2.0<http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/> / Ref4UU<http://ref4uu.blogspot.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trees say printing is a thing of the past From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Gingras, Yves Sent: zondag 5 april 2015 1:48 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers Hello all In all this debate about what are obviously predatory journals that just want to make fast money before disappearing, has anybody asked the basic question: do we really need any new journal in any scientific field? There are already plenty of legitimate journals around in most specialties of science and no obvious need to create new ones. I receive regularly "invitations" to publish in those new journals and I consider the very fact of receiving them as a sufficient proof that one should not publish in those venues. I think that many who accept to publish there are researchers that are not very much aware of the hierarchy of the legitimate journals in their field and who are thus at the peripehery of their field and pressured to publish irrespective of the legitimacy of the journals chosen. The fact that papers have been tansformed from "unit of knowledge" into "units of evaluation", contributes to this tendency to try to publish anything anywhere. And predators are bright enough to play the rhetorical card of "south" versus "north", "dominant" versus "dominated" to convince these researchers to create their own local niche to publish their "discoveries", as if the idea of universal knowledge was a naïveté of the past... Yves Gingras ________________________________ De : goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] de la part de Mauricio Tuffani [mauri...@tuffani.net<mailto:mauri...@tuffani.net>] Date d'envoi : 4 avril 2015 17:07 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers Dear Mr. Bosman, Thank you for your attention and for taking the time in your answer. Although I am not an expert in academic publishing, I know some of the conflicts involving this activity. I have pointed out in predatory journals the affront to the same principles of transparency and accountability highlighted for you. I know that the big publishers also have journals that publish rubbish. I myself have written about this, including exposing Elsevier. But I'm not an activist or a policy maker. My priority as a journalist is to show what does not work. It is show, for example, that information widely publicized, as the list of Mr. Beall, several reports and many other sources were not even considered by some 2,000 experts from the 48 advisory committees of the Brazilian federal agency Capes. And the result of all this is waste pointed out by me and accepted by Qualis. I have not finished counting, but at least 240 Brazilian universities and other institutions were already affected by publication in journals of poor quality. Regardless of all this, let me show a quick personal assessment that may interest for those who think strategically about the OA. In the current political moment in Brazil, one of the worst things you can do is to introduce, for example, the north-south opposition and most other related topics. This approach certainly result in a ideological polarization that will eliminate any possibility of rational discussion. It would have been very easy for me to interview some academics who hate the government Dilma and also the president of Capes, which is in this position since the beginning of Lula's administration in 2003. They certainly would express devastating comments, but that's not what I want. As I said, if the growing garbage from predatory journals in Brazil continues to be ignored, it will Become much larger. And it will be very bad for the OA. Maurício Tuffani http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani mauri...@tuffani.net<mailto:mauri...@tuffani.net> 2015-04-04 13:51 GMT-03:00 Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) <j.bos...@uu.nl<mailto:j.bos...@uu.nl>>: Dear Mr. Tuffani and others, I think you are doing good work in alerting the Brazilian science community to the dangers of rogue publishers or would-be publishers going for easy money. This is already complex, because there is no simple criterion, there are grey zones between black and white. Some trustworthy journals are just young and maybe amateurish but could develop in valuable contributions to the publishing landscape. Others are indeed bordering on criminal activity. Still I would like to take the opportunity to make this more complex. I think you cannot improve the system by clinging to "prestige", "highly ranked", "internationally renowned", "reputable" etc. There are many journals and scientists that published rubbish, manipulated data and whatever despite having these eponyms atached to them. What is needed is transparency, open reviewing and assessments, sharing of experiences with reviewing processes etc. What is not needed is ever more complex lists of journals in 6 or more categories. These are non-sustainable nonsense. You simply cannot judge a paper or scientists by the cover of journals. What also makes this more complex is thatbtjis takes place in a struggle between north and global south, between the dominating mainstream English language science culture and other cultures. I'm not saying there is no need to develop and live by global values in science. But that is a complex process that takes a generation and that doesn't simply boil down to 'just publish in English in a paywalled journal included in Thomson Reuters' JCR list. This is also a struggle between traditionalists, going for prestige, rankings and competition and forward looking scientists, going for collaboration, transparency and opennness. I think Brazil could make a giant leap by radically doing away with the idea that they can only be valuable and succesful in science by playing the traditional impact factor/reputation game and engage in the rat-race to publish as much as they can. The giant leap I mention can be taken by setting up a really transparent and forward looking scholarly communication system. The technology and models are available, tried and tested. Just as many countries in Africa moved into mobile communications without first building a network of ground telephone lines, so Brazil can jump the phase of trying to catch up in science with 20th century models. When you watch what is really going on now it is broad platforms and journals (e.g. PLOS, ScienceOpen, PeerJ, eLife), open and/or post publication peer review (PeerJ, F1000, BMJ), ditching impact factors by universities and even national associations of universities (see San Francisco Dora declaration), wholesale flipping to Open Access, mandated datasharing by funders and more. Not of of this is the mainstream yet, but it may very well be within 5 years. We are in dire need of more broad initiatiaves along these lines, especially in BRICS countires. Such a focus on the future might prove to bring Brazilian science more than sticking to the old models. With a well thought out plan, broad support, good incentivess and transparency Brazil could even lead on this path. In retrospect this attack of your house by predatory bugs may have been a blessing in disguise because it made you realise the bugs where not the biggest problem. The bigger problem was the state your/our house was in. Kind regards, Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University library Op 4 apr. 2015 om 17:03 heeft "Jacinto Dávila" <jacinto.dav...@gmail.com<mailto:jacinto.dav...@gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven: I am sorry Mr. Tuffani, but your are just adopting Beall's list and, therefore, copying his mistakes or, at least, his anti-OA stance. You suggest that Qualis comes "without rigor" and inmediately claims "The expression “predatory journals” has been used for some years to designate academic journals published by companies operating without scientific rigor an important scientific communication initiative that came up with the internet. This is the Open Access<http://legacy.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/brief-port.htm> (OA), the editorial model of publishing articles in open access, funded by the academic institutions sponsoring their own journals or by charging fees from the authors of the studies." Well, this 17 journals in your lists ARE NOT Open Access. They did not even claim to be: WSEAS<http://www.wseas.org/> (World Science and Engineering Academy Society)*** * WSEAS Transactions on Acoustics and Music<http://www.worldses.org/journals/acoustics/index.html> [ISSN: 1109-9577 – descontinuado] * WSEAS Transactions on Applied and Theoretical Mechanics<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4006> [ISSN: 1991-8747] * WSEAS Transactions on Applied and Theoretical Mechanics<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4006> [ISSN: 2224-3429] * WSEAS Transactions on Biology and Biomedicine<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4011> * WSEAS Transactions on Circuits<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=2861> * WSEAS Transactions on Circuits and Systems<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=2861> * WSEAS Transactions on Communications<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4021> * WSEAS Transactions on Computer Research<http://www.worldses.org/journals/research/index.html> [ISSN: 1991-8755 – descontinuado] * WSEAS Transactions on Computers<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4026> * WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4031> * WSEAS Transactions on Fluid Mechanics<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4036> * WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4046> * WSEAS Transactions on Mathematics<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4051> * WSEAS Transactions on Power Systems<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4057> * WSEAS Transactions on Systems<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4057> * WSEAS Transactions on Systems and Control<http://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4073> ________________________________ ***O WASEAS não tem clareza sobre os valores de suas taxas de processamento de artigos. O publisher tem feito muitas “operações casadas” que envolvem taxas de inscrição em evento Maybe what you want to say is what Mr. Beall seems to state: they are "potentially" OA. But then, with this lack of rigor, everything is OA. Perhaps, while you are criticising OA for this you should also, for the sake of neutrality, explain how one of these 17 has this kind of "standard" support: WSEAS Transactions on Systems and Control (appears in) * Cabell Publishing * CiteSeerx * Cobiss * Compendex® * EBSCO * EBSCOhost | Academic Search Research and Development * EBSCOhost | Applied Science and Technology Source * EBSCOhost | Energy & Power Source * EBSCOhost | TOC Premier™ * Electronic Journals Library * ELSEVIER® * Engineering Index (EI) * Engineering Village * Google Scholar * Inspec | The IET * Microsoft Academic Search System * SCIRUS * SCOPUS® * SWETS * TIB|UB | German National Library of Science and Technology * Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory * WorldCat OCLC These are not OA indexes. Predatory behaviour is a wider issue. On 4 April 2015 at 06:57, Mauricio Tuffani <mauri...@tuffani.net<mailto:mauri...@tuffani.net>> wrote: The translation is now available: Brazilian graduate system counts now 235 predatory journals<http://mauriciotuffani.blogfolha.uol.com.br/brazilian-graduate-system-counts-now-235-predatory-journals/> Maurício Tuffani http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani mauri...@tuffani.net<mailto:mauri...@tuffani.net> 2015-04-03 18:34 GMT-03:00 Mauricio Tuffani <mauri...@tuffani.net<mailto:mauri...@tuffani.net>>: Mr. Davila, The list is published from March 9 — accessible through the same link in my report indicated here by Mr. Beall — and has been updated today. Now are at least 235 predatory journals in Qualis. http://mauriciotuffani.blogfolha.uol.com.br/publishers-predatorios-e-seus-periodicos-no-qualis/ Auditing and supervision are precisely what is not allowed by all the publishers in that list. In all my posts and articles I have emphasized the need for such transparency. And I do not need to explain this by defining OA. My focus is not to attack OA, but also is not make OA advocacy. Maurício Tuffani 2015-04-02 18:47 GMT-03:00 Jacinto Dávila <jacinto.dav...@gmail.com<mailto:jacinto.dav...@gmail.com>>: Publish that list Mr Tuffani. Openness is not only about allowing papers to be read "in the Internet". But also about allowing auditing and supervision of all sorts and at all levels. I understand you must summarize the arguments for non-expert readers. But this is a gross over-simplification of OA: " Open Access Predatory journals are academic journals published by companies operating, without scientific rigor, an important scientific communication initiative that came up with the internet. This is the Open Access<http://legacy.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/brief-port.htm> (OA), the editorial model of publishing articles in open access, based on the charging of fees from authors or funding by scientific institutions. Both in the OA as in the traditional model maintained by annual subscriptions or fees per downloaded article from the Internet, reputable journals take months or even over a year to review and accept articles, or reject them. " On 2 April 2015 at 16:41, Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca<mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>> wrote: If some academics find it difficult publicly to denounce what obviously are rogue journals, others obviously will. It is only a question of perseverance. Furthermore, we need academics only to endorse journals that they know to be legitimate. Those without the ability to have five open sponsors will simply stand out in the list (that for colleagues who might be scared of being sued). Besides, Mr. Tuffani, all you have to do is publish the list of the 200 doubtful titles and ask who would be willing to put his/her good name behind any of these journals. If it turns out that some are actually legitimate, we shall soon know. They will have no difficulty in garnering five sponsors who can be easily identified and queried as to their decision to support a particular title. Jean-Claude Guédon -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le jeudi 02 avril 2015 à 17:28 -0300, Mauricio Tuffani a écrit : I will write about the suggestions of Mrs. Morrison and Mr. Guédon to CAPES. But I sent them previously for this Brazilian federal agency, as I reported in my post yesterday, whose translation is available in the page of the link below. " The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers " http://mauriciotuffani.blogfolha.uol.com.br/the-qualis-and-the-silence-of-the-brazilian-researchers/ Best regards, *************************** Maurício Tuffani Journalist, science writer São Paulo, SP, Brazil Mobile: +55 11 99164-8443<tel:%2B55%2011%2099164-8443> Phone: +55 11 2366-9949<tel:%2B55%2011%202366-9949> http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani mauri...@tuffani.net<mailto:mauri...@tuffani.net> *************************** _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jacinto Dávila http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jacinto Dávila http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ 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
