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 simply unethical and unacceptable anymore.
Elsevier self did more thant 4.3 billions USD in 2014, with a margin
larger thant 30 %, and a net increase of more than 5 % for many years
... while the resto of the world have been in a "financial crisis"
since 2008
The amounts are just huge. I see them as a private tax on world
research that is also an impediment on the developpement of science and
life preservation. No less than that.
What is the total of these sums ? Can we imagine what could be achived
if these amounts were dedicated to research only and given to the
developpement of science ?
I view our efforts related to OA so far as marginal efforts. They do
not change the system fundamentally, nor enough.
There is in my view no other way that to put these companies out of
business. It is possible and doable.
Today, the system holds because the researchers themselves value the
impact criteria ... that ar supported by many financing institutions,
universities amongst them. This is a vicious circle that need to be
abolished.
The proposal of Pierre-Louis Lions, president of the Ecole normale
supérieure, professor at the College de France is a good one I think :
1/ refuse any publication list in CV and grant request
2/ change the definition of "papers" : a paper would become "anything
published anywere publically on the internet, and would include
comments to other publications and sources code of software"
3/ dump the journals that request APC at least larger than some dizains
of euros or dollars
4/ for grant or positions, request that the canditate indicates which
of his 3 (for juniors) or 5
(for seniors) papers (in the new sense) are his best contributions to
science, and ask for written justification of such claims,
5/ dump any quantitative considerations for qualitative ones, but for
the last sorting of candidates if needed
All this would work already without much problems if the institutions
themselves decide to change the rules.
New journals (like the one mentionned by Tim Gowers) could still exist
but be different : they could be post publication selection journal, be
electronic only and hence be nearly gratis (free in the sense "no cost"
or nearly none)
I would very much like to elaborate on such proposal with you and
discuss this here or even better publically on the internet.
Best regards,
Nicolas Pettiaux
Le sam 3 oct 2015 à 17:55, Heather Morrison
<[email protected]> a écrit :
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
qualitative, whether a high standard of review is met. There likely
are similar models elsewhere - I am sure that one needs to fit within
the academic community to be part of Scielo, for example. Research to
gather information on what people are doing would be helpful.
Regional or discipline-based approaches would make sense.
I question the need for a universal list, and for metrics-based
approaches. Whether a contribution to our knowledge is sound and
important and whether it has an immediate short-term impact are two
completely separate questions. My perspective is that work is needed
on the impact of metrics-based approaches.
The important questions for scholars in any discipline should be
"what to read" and "where to publish", not any metric, traditional or
alternative. I think we scholars ourselves should take responsibility
for the lists and recommending journals for indexing rather than
leaving such questions to the commercial sector.
Heather
On Oct 3, 2015, at 11:25 AM, "Éric Archambault"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi List
Hi list
My previous efforts rapidly went off-topic, so I’m making a second
effort to reload the questions to the list with the hope of
receiving more input on this important topic.
Back to our still largely unaddressed problem, I am re-inviting
people to contribute ideas, focussing away from individuals.
What is the best way to deal with the question of assessing the
practices of publishers and journals (for subscription only, hybrid
and open access journals)?
Should it be done through a negative list listing
journals/publishers with deceptive practices?
Should it be done through a positive list of best-practice journals?
Should it be done through an exhaustive list comprising all
scholarly quality-reviewed journals (peer-review is somewhat
restrictive as different fields have different norms).
Personally, I think the latter is the way to go. Firstly, there is
currently no exhaustive list of reviewed scholarly journals. Though
we sent astronauts to the moon close to half a century ago, we are
still largely navigating blind on evidence-based decision-making in
science. No one can confidently say how many active journals there
are the world over. We need an exhaustive list. Secondly, I think
journals and publishers should not be examined in a dichotomous
manner; we need several criteria to assess their practice and the
quality of what is being published.
What metrics do we need to assess journal quality, and more
specifically`:
-What metrics of scholarly impact should be used (that is, within
the scholarly community impact – typically the proprietary Thomson
Journal Impact Factor has been the most widely used even though it
was designed at the same time as we sent astronauts to the moon and
has pretty much never been updated since -- full disclosure:
Science-Metrix is a client of Thomson Reuters’s Web of Science raw
data; competing indicators include Elsevier’s SNIP and SCIMAGO’s
SJR, both computed with Scopus data and available for free for a few
years but with comparatively limited uptake -- full disclosure:
Science-Metrix is a client of Elsevier’s Scopus raw data; note
also that bibliometrics practices such as CWTS, iFQ and
Science-Metrix compute their own version of these journal impact
indicators using WoS and/or Scopus data)
-What metrics of outreach should be used (e.g. use by the public,
government, enterprises – typically these are covered by so-called
“alternative metrics”)?
-What metrics of peer-review and quality-assessment effectiveness
should be used?
-What other metrics would be relevant?
Perhaps before addressing the above questions we should examine
these two questions:
Why do we need such a list?
What are the use cases for such a list?
The following “how” questions are very important too:
-How should such a list be produced?
-How will it be sustainable?
Finally the “who” question:
Who should be contributing the list?
-A Wikipedia-sort of crowdsourced list?
-Should only experts be allowed to contribute to the list?
Librarians? Scholars? Anyone?
-A properly funded not-for-profit entity?
-Corporate entities vying for a large market share?
Thank you for your input,
Éric
Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6 - Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: science-metrix.com
1science.com
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[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
