Personally, I don't think I'd bother submitting papers to anything that isn't referenced in the mainstream academic databases. Do others agree, or am I the only "shallow" one on the ecolog list? :-) Lauren
> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:42:48 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Open access versus traditional publication models > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Dear Ecologers, > > I'd like to probe the forum on people's opinion of the publication models > available to scientists today. I (and probably most of us) have seen a > massive rise in the number of open access publications over just the last > 2-3 years. And yet this seems to be happening alongside an explosion in the > number of traditional-style publications as well. What does this all mean > for us ecologists trying to get our studies read by as many people as > possible and by those that can take your information and make a difference > with it – either through further research or policy? > > I'll be honest that I'm leery of many of the new open access journals. I do > see value in them, especially for those who are at underfunded research > centers that don't have access to many of the mainstream publications. On > the other hand, what are they? Do they ultimately reach as many people? And > do they reach the "right" people – the ones that control aspects of policy > or have top-tier research programs. Are these new journals to be indexed in > Web of Science or the other academic search engines? So many questions > surround this new format and I just wonder what the rest of the community > thinks. > > Andrew > -- > Andrew L. Rypel > Box 870206 > Department of Biological Sciences > University of Alabama > Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 > Office: (205)348-4439 > Mobile: (205)886-9916 > http://bama.ua.edu/~rypel001 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-US&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V3
