Dear Eric,
Though I agree simply accepting one man’s list is not sustainable, I doubt
creating yet another list is the best way forward. There are already so many
lists out there. Every new initiative seems to dilute and weaken efforts.
Please let’s just try to tie the initiatives together
ber 04, 2015 9:02 AM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and
Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded
Dear Eric,
Though I agree simply accepting one man’s list is not sustainable, I doubt
creating yet anothe
(Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and
Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded
Dear Eric,
Though I agree simply accepting one man’s list is not sustainable, I doubt
creating yet another list is the best way forward. There are already so many
hi Eric,
It is good to see a discussion of this topic. Some preliminary thoughts:
The journal-level peer review process involved in the SSHRC Aid to Scholarly
Journals is a type of model I suggest others look at. The primary questions
have nothing to do with metrics, but rather are
Dear
I also appreciate such a discussion.
There are some fundamentals problem with the current situation in
scientific edition.
For me, even though there are numerous free journasl, most of the
prominents ones are still owned by too few large companies that makes
too much money. This is
of Heather
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2015 8:55 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and
Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded
hi Eric,
It is good to see
