Hi Sheila, That would be a great resource! I would guess many university presses are not for profit, but not aware of any list. I'm editor of a journal (Open Quaternary), which is published by Ubiquity Press ( http://www.ubiquitypress.com/), a non-for-profit publisher of books and journals that was founded by researchers at UCL; a lot of the staff left other big academic publishers to work there. They are also completely transparent about where fees are allocated (much lower than for-profit publishers, around $500 rather than $3,000, plus waivers available: http://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/publish/). I think they are a great example of how a not-for-profit publisher can be a success.
Best Suzanne -- Dr. Suzanne E. Pilaar Birch Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology Department of Geography University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA Editor-in-Chief, Open Quaternary openquaternary.com Website: uga.academia.edu/SuzannePilaarBirch Twitter: @suzie_birch On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Suzanne Pilaar Birch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sheila, > > That would be a great resource! I would guess many university presses are > not for profit, but not aware of any list. I'm editor of a journal (Open > Quaternary), which is published by Ubiquity Press ( > http://www.ubiquitypress.com/), a non-for-profit publisher of books and > journals that was founded by researchers at UCL; a lot of the staff left > other big academic publishers to work there. They are also completely > transparent about where fees are allocated (much lower than for-profit > publishers, around $500 rather than $3,000, plus waivers available: > http://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/publish/). I think they are a great > example of how a not-for-profit publisher can be a success. > > Best > > Suzanne > > -- > Dr. Suzanne E. Pilaar Birch > > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > Department of Geography > University of Georgia > Athens, GA, USA > > Editor-in-Chief, Open Quaternary > openquaternary.com > > Website: uga.academia.edu/SuzannePilaarBirch > Twitter: @suzie_birch > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Sheila Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is there a list anywhere of the journals with not-for-profit publishers? >> >> Sheila Ward >> >> >> On 2015-03-30 16:06, Ganter, Philip wrote: >> >>> If the model of scientific publishing is the for-profit publisher hiding >>> publicly funded research behind a pay wall and making a profit, then I >>> think most would agree with Atanu: reviewers should be paid. >>> >>> If the model is the older model of professional societies and individual >>> scientists (or small groups of scientists) publishing as a service to >>> their field (so well described by Malcolm in an earlier posting) then >>> most >>> would disagree with Atanu as there is no money for paying reviewers and >>> we >>> all benefit from their work. >>> >>> There was a time when the latter model was more common or, at least, was >>> seen by most scientists as more common. This perception produced the >>> comment about free-riding, Atanu, not animosity towards you personally. >>> >>> Unless we stop publishing in for-profit journals (is Wiley or Reed >>> Elselvier any less predatory than Jacobs?), we risk motives other than >>> the >>> communication of quality scientific work taking command of science >>> publishing. Profit is a great motivator, as free market exponents >>> continually remind us. So great, in fact, that other motives are >>> over-ridden when push comes to shove. Removing profit should be a >>> priority and funding agencies should lead the way by requiring sufficient >>> publishing funds be included in proposal budgets as well as requiring >>> those receiving their funds to only publish in open-access journals. >>> Science be damned (the journal, that is). >>> >>> If this were the case, Geoffrey’s assertion that those who want to >>> publish >>> must also agree to review would have more weight. As it is, many >>> (seemingly including Atanu) choose not to make money for the shareholders >>> of large publishing houses. >>> >>> Phil Ganter >>> Biological Sciences >>> Tennessee State University >>> >>> >>> On 3/30/15, 1:57 PM, "Atanu Mukherjee" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me. >>>> >>>> "The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of good >>>> reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then? >>>> >>>> "Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in >>>> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did >>>> you >>>> mean by "differentially compensated", exactly? >>>> >>>> "Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need >>>> reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then >>>> why >>>> did the thread started otherwise? >>>> >>>> "If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that >>>> you >>>> submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review >>>> system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not relevant at >>>> all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current flaw-filled peer >>>> reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act like a professional >>>> by >>>> paying a good salary to the reviewers and see the change you want. >>>> Period. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> The economics are really rather different. >>>>> >>>>> Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in >>>>> chronically short supply and is differentially compensated. >>>>> >>>>> Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need >>>>> reviewers to get their papers published. >>>>> >>>>> If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that >>>>> you >>>>> submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review >>>>> system and that behavior is not professional at all. >>>>> >>>>> ~~~~ +/*\+ ~~~~ >>>>> Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE >>>>> Professor, Natural Resource Management >>>>> Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE) >>>>> South Dakota State University >>>>> 1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B >>>>> Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA >>>>> voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX) >>>>> email: [email protected] >>>>> http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: >>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of >>>>> papers >>>>> >>>>> Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end >>>>> they >>>>> don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals charge >>>>> for a >>>>> paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of money to the >>>>> authors >>>>> for publishing but the people who perform the major role behind the >>>>> journals' success get unpaid. Sorry, either you pay the reviewers >>>>> (nobody >>>>> is interested in your subscription waiver or something like that) a >>>>> standard money or you keep seeing the trend: "so many people decline to >>>>> do >>>>> reviews these days". When you're doing business, be professional. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Stefano Liccioli >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Good morning, >>>>> > in regards to the reviewing issue and the fact that "so many people >>>>> > decline to do reviews these days",I was wondering how many of the >>>>> > Ecologgers (at least, those of you who are reviewers) are registered >>>>> > on Poblons https://publons.com/ I was recently invited to do so and >>>>> I >>>>> > haven't done yet (perhaps waiting to hear on it from colleagues) - >>>>> but >>>>> > maybe it could help to actually get a credit for the reviewing work, >>>>> > and who knows, perhaps making it more official and less prone to >>>>> > fraud? >>>>> > Thanks for your input. >>>>> > Stefano >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Il Sabato 28 Marzo 2015 22:06, Stephen L. Young >>>>> > <[email protected]> ha scritto: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > It is interesting that we tend to look at how things were and >>>>> > reminisce about how good it was then, yet I wonder if we were >>>>> thinking >>>>> > similarly at that time? The same things have been said regarding >>>>> > formula funding and IDC rates and while comparison with the past is >>>>> > good, there needs to be a balance with what kinds of creative >>>>> > solutions we can come up with for the future. >>>>> > Steve >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Meiss <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>What ever happened to the scholarly journal being a pet sideline of >>>>> > >>a working professor, struggling by on subscription fees and small >>>>> > >>allotments from the university's research foundation, with >>>>> > >>high-level graduate students doing some of the editorial work as >>>>> > >>part of a stipend deal? >>>>> > >> Perhaps not the best of all possible governance models, but it >>>>> > >>seems to me like a better recipe for scientific integrity than >>>>> > >>being a profit-center of a corporate machine. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Your thoughts, please... >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Martin M. Meiss >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> 2015-03-27 23:29 GMT-04:00 Stephen L. Young <[email protected]>: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> > There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does >>>>> > >> > that >>>>> > >>get >>>>> > >> > you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help >>>>> to >>>>> > >>offer >>>>> > >> > honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited >>>>> seminars. >>>>> > >> > Steve >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, "Judith S. Weis" >>>>> > >> > <[email protected]> >>>>> > >> > wrote: >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do >>>>> > >> > >reviews >>>>> > >>these >>>>> > >> > >days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to >>>>> > >> > >keep looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do >>>>> > >> > >reviews >>>>> > >>don't >>>>> > >> > >recommend another potential reviewer. >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who >>>>> > >> > > have >>>>> > >>done >>>>> > >> > >> work >>>>> > >> > >> that crosses over. >>>>> > >> > >> For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian >>>>> > >> > >> larvae >>>>> > >>in >>>>> > >> an >>>>> > >> > >> agronomic landscape. >>>>> > >> > >> I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one >>>>> > >> > >>who is versed in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), >>>>> > >> > >>then maybe a third >>>>> > >>who >>>>> > >> > >> does >>>>> > >> > >> amphibian tox. When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask >>>>> > >> > >> him/her >>>>> > >>to >>>>> > >> > >> recommend someone else if they are unable to do it. This is >>>>> > >> INCREDIBLY >>>>> > >> > >> productive and successful. We don't take reviewer >>>>> > >> > >> recommendations >>>>> > >>at >>>>> > >> > >>HCB. >>>>> > >> > >> I always get really flustered when a journal asks for >>>>> > >> > >>reviewers >>>>> > >>too. >>>>> > >> > >>I'm >>>>> > >> > >> always concerned about the balance between naming someone who >>>>> > >> > >>I >>>>> > >>think >>>>> > >> is >>>>> > >> > >> well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some >>>>> way. >>>>> > >> It >>>>> > >> > >> gets >>>>> > >> > >> really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to >>>>> > >> > >> know >>>>> > >>a >>>>> > >> lot >>>>> > >> > >> of >>>>> > >> > >> people and you also tick off your fair share. Also, if you >>>>> > >> > >> are >>>>> > >>doing >>>>> > >> > >> research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are >>>>> > >> > >> going >>>>> > >>to >>>>> > >> end >>>>> > >> > >> up >>>>> > >> > >> communicating with others who do similar stuff. It isn't >>>>> > >> > >> long, and everyone knows everyone. >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >> Malcolm >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric >>>>> > >> > >> <[email protected]> >>>>> > >> > >> wrote: >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >>> As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors >>>>> suggest. >>>>> > >>When I >>>>> > >> > >>>do, >>>>> > >> > >>> it is because I know the person is capable of giving a >>>>> > >> > >>>serious, unbiased review >>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>> > >> > >>> Eric S. Menges >>>>> > >> > >>> Editor, Natural Areas Journal >>>>> > >> > >>>________________________________________ >>>>> > >> > >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ >>>>> > >> > >>>[email protected]] on behalf of David Mellor [ >>>>> > >> > >>>[email protected]] >>>>> > >> > >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM >>>>> > >> > >>> To: [email protected] >>>>> > >> > >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to >>>>> > >> > >>>retractions of papers >>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>> > >> > >>> It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation >>>>> > >>services†>>>>> > >> > >>> that pose >>>>> > >> > >>> on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the >>>>> > >>“suggested >>>>> > >> > >>> reviewer†feature in the submission process to mislead >>>>> > >> > >>> editors >>>>> > >>into >>>>> > >> > >>> contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The >>>>> > >> > >>> BMC >>>>> > >>blog >>>>> > >> > >>> post >>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >>http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/ >>>>> manipulation-peer- >>>>> > >>revi >>>>> > >> > >>>ew/ >>>>> > >> > >>> < >>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >>http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/ >>>>> manipulation-peer- >>>>> > >>revi >>>>> > >> > >>>ew/> >>>>> > >> > >>> explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be >>>>> > >> > >>>happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing >>>>> > >> > >>>to bring it to light, given >>>>> > >>the >>>>> > >> > >>> potential tarnish it creates. >>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>> > >> > >>> David Mellor >>>>> > >> > >>> Center for Open Science <http://centerforopenscience.org/> >>>>> > >> > >>> (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor >>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>> > >> > >>> > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss >>>>> > >> > >>> > <[email protected]> >>>>> > >> wrote: >>>>> > >> > >>> > >>>>> > >> > >>> > I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, >>>>> > >> > >>> > BioMed >>>>> > >> > >>>Central, >>>>> > >> > >>> > <http://www.biomedcentral.com/about> puts out 277 >>>>> journals. >>>>> > >>That >>>>> > >> > >>> seems >>>>> > >> > >>> > like a lot of concentration of power. >>>>> > >> > >>> > >>>>> > >> > >>> > Martin M. Meiss >>>>> > >> > >>> > >>>>> > >> > >>> > 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye <[email protected]>: >>>>> > >> > >>> > >>>>> > >> > >>> >> I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. >>>>> > >> > >>> >> >>>>> > >> > >>> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ >>>>> news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ >>>>> > >> > >>> >> 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- >>>>> > >> > >>> >> retract-43-papers-systematic- >>>>> scheme-may-affect-other-journ >>>>> > >> > >>> >> als/ >>>>> > >> > >>> >> >>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >> -- >>>>> > >> > >> Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP >>>>> > >> > >> Environmental Studies Program >>>>> > >> > >> Green Mountain College >>>>> > >> > >> Poultney, Vermont >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >> “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than >>>>> > >> > >> the >>>>> > >>rich >>>>> > >> > >> array >>>>> > >> > >> of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is >>>>> > >> > >>a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, >>>>> and >>>>> > >> > >>nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the >>>>> heritage >>>>> > >> > >>we all share as Americans.†-President Richard Nixon upon >>>>> > >> > >>signing the Endangered Species Act of >>>>> > >> 1973 >>>>> > >> > >> into law. >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of >>>>> > >>drive" - >>>>> > >> > >> Allan >>>>> > >> > >> Nation >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >>>>> > >> > >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, >>>>> habitat >>>>> > >>loss, >>>>> > >> > >> and pollution. >>>>> > >> > >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution >>>>> > >>reduction >>>>> > >> > >> MAY help restore populations. >>>>> > >> > >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o >>>>> > >> > >> work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce >>>>> > >> > >> w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice >>>>> > >> > >> Politics w/o principle >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>>>> > >> > >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) >>>>> > >> > >> and >>>>> > >>may >>>>> > >> > >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any >>>>> > >> > >> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is >>>>> > >> > >> prohibited. If you are >>>>> > >>not >>>>> > >> > >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply >>>>> > >> > >> e-mail >>>>> > >>and >>>>> > >> > >> destroy all copies of the original message. >>>>> > >> > >> >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >-- >>>>> > >Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP >>>>> > >Environmental Studies Program >>>>> > >Green Mountain College >>>>> > >Poultney, Vermont >>>>> > > >>>>> > > “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich >>>>> > >array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is >>>>> a >>>>> > >many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature >>>>> > >lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share >>>>> > >as Americans.” >>>>> > >-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of >>>>> > >1973 into law. >>>>> > > >>>>> > >"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" >>>>> - >>>>> > >Allan Nation >>>>> > > >>>>> > >1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >>>>> > >1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >>>>> > > and pollution. >>>>> > >2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution >>>>> reduction >>>>> > > MAY help restore populations. >>>>> > >2022: Soylent Green is People! >>>>> > > >>>>> > >The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work >>>>> > >Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o >>>>> morality >>>>> > >Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle >>>>> > > >>>>> > >Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>>>> > >attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and >>>>> may >>>>> > >contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >>>>> > >review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are >>>>> > >not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply >>>>> e-mail >>>>> > >and destroy all copies of the original message. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> *Atanu Mukherjee, Ph.D* >>>>> *Columbus Ohio 43220* >>>>> *352-870-1228* >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Atanu Mukherjee, Ph.D* >>>> *Columbus Ohio 43220* >>>> *352-870-1228* >>>> >>> >> -- >> Sheila Ward, PhD >> > >
