I am one of the editors of Herpetological Conservation and Biology. We modeled this as an open access journal without page charges. All of the work done on the journal is done by volunteers and we are referenced by EMBiology, Scopus, Wildlife Abstracts, Zoological Record, and several others. Being that the journal is only in its third volume, it isn't yet eligible for inclusion in ISI, however, Scopus will calculate our H-score based on their database. At the end of 2007 I self calculated our score to be competitive with Journal of Herpetology and Herpetologica. Regardless, the tide of papers coming into HCB is beyond belief. So, I do not think that open access is an issue for most scientists as long as it is a legitimate journal serving a legitimate scientific community. We have peer review followed by three tears of editorial review. So we try to ensure high quality. At the same time, we are serving a specific level of research and not trying to be science or ecology. If we eventually have an ISI rating comparable with Jherp, I'm happy. Certainly, our model is a difficult one to follow because you must have all of the talent, drive, and expertise assembled together in a workable fashion. This isn't easy to accomplish and may simply take a little luck. Maybe the most important part is making sure credit goes where it belongs. In our case, everyone works together and none of us are glory-hogs, and that helps.
If you want to check it out, the link is http://www.herpconbio.org. Malcolm McCallum On Thu, March 27, 2008 3:29 pm, L Quinn wrote: > 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 Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
