Re: “Publishing in scholarly peer reviewed journals usually entails long delays from submission to publication. In part this is due to the length of the peer review process and in part because of the dominating tradition of publication in issues, earlier a necessity of paper‐based publishing, which creates backlogs of manuscripts waiting in line.” … in: http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf
Isn’t is generally true (at least in the science and technology fields) that ‘Epub ahead of print’ publishing practices have obviated delays in waiting for issues to be completed? I understand that in mathematics and other fields that delays between ‘Epub ahead of print’ and the final completed issue can stretch out for ~a year. Dana L. Roth Caltech Library 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bo-Christer Björk Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [GOAL] Re: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing You could check out http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf as well as http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157713000710 green version http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~sugimoto/preprints/Journalacceptancerates.pdf Bo-Christer On 12/21/13 5:43 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter wrote: Dear all, With regards to this really excellent initiative I am looking in to the various degrees in transparency of the peer review process. Has anybody examples at hand of editorials, where they give an overview of number of articles submitted, and ultimately accepted, and the time the whole cycle from submission to final publication actually took. So now and then I have seen this in journals, but can’t find any example right now. I would be grateful for some hints. Wouter Wouter Gerritsma Team leader research support Information Specialist – Bibliometrician Wageningen UR Library PO box 9100 6700 HA Wageningen The Netherlands ++31 3174 83052 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]%0d> wageningenur.nl/library<http://wageningenur.nl/library> @wowter<http://twitter.com/Wowter/> wowter.net<http://wowter.net/> #AWCP http://tinyurl.com/mk65m36 From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Claire Redhead Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [GOAL] Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing The Committee on Publication Ethics<http://publicationethics.org/%E2%80%8E>, the Directory of Open Access Journals<http://www.doaj.org/>, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association<http://oaspa.org/>, and the World Association of Medical Editors<http://www.wame.org/> are scholarly organizations that have seen an increase in the number of membership applications from both legitimate and non-legitimate publishers and journals. Our organizations have collaborated in an effort to identify principles of transparency and best practice that set apart legitimate journals and publishers from non-legitimate ones and to clarify that these principles form part of the criteria on which membership applications will be evaluated. This is a work in progress and we welcome feedback on the general principles and the specific criteria. Please see the full statement<http://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing/> on the OASPA blog (http://oaspa.org/blog/). Claire Redhead Membership & Communications Manager Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, OASPA http://oaspa.org/ _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
