[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers
Dear Yves and others, Of course journals evolve, almost everything does: companies, political parties etc. But no one would suggest not to set up a new company or poliitcal party but rather wait for the existing ones to adopt what you think is necessary. Just like it is normal for journals to evolve, it is normal for new jourals to arrive on the scene and also for some journals to disappear. We could indeed go through the list of 23,000 jornals in Scopus, and that's probably just half of scholarly journals out there, and we will find that most have not adopted the bulk of the characteristics I mentioned. Especially journals that are OA with low or medium APC and options for open and/or post-pub peer review are rare. Best, Jeroen Op 6 apr. 2015 om 08:30 heeft Gingras, Yves gingras.y...@uqam.camailto:gingras.y...@uqam.ca het volgende geschreven: Helllo Journals do evolve: they already did by going on-line and -- for many -- paperless. Many are continuous already trough online first, etc. Most of the elements on your list can be incorporated in the future without problems. I will not go through it one by one for it would be tedious, but becoming other is what evolution do... Yves Gingras De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl] Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 08:46 À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers Dear Yves and others, Of course we could discuss what “a hierarchy of legitimate journals” is and whether one should base submission decisions on such hierarchies. But that would be another thread I think. What concerns me here is your question on the need for more journals. Overall I would agree that we do not need more journals. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the current journals suffice. We need *other* journals. For instance, in the field I serve (human geography) there is a dire need for journals with these characteristics: - fully Open Access - online only - CC-BY license - authors retain copyright - maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model like that at PeerJ) - APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries) - really international profile of editors/board (far beyond US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR) - no issues: continuous publishing - in principle no size restrictions - using ORCID and DOI of course - peer review along PLOS One idea: only check for (methodological) soundness (and whether it is no obvious garbage or plagiarism), avoiding costly system of multiple cascading submissions/rejections - post pub open non anonymous peer review, so the community decides what is the worth of published papers - peer review reports themselves are citable and have DOIs - making (small) updates to articles possible (i.e. creating an updated version) - making it easy to link to additional material (data, video, code etc.) shared via external platforms like Zenodo or Figshare - no IF advertising - open for text mining - providing a suite of article level metrics - using e.g. LOCKSS or Portico for digital preservation - indexing at least by Google Scholar and DOAJ, at a later stage also Scopus, Web of Science and others - optionally a pre-print archive (but could rely on SSRN as well) I would call them forward looking Open Access journals. They are just not present in the English language in my field. And that may be true for many other field. Would you agree that we do not need *more* journals but that we do still need *other* journals? Kind regards, Jeroen image003.jpg 101 innovations in scholarly communicationhttp://innoscholcomm.silk.co/ Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl telephone: +31.30.2536613 mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht web: Jeroen Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU profiles: : Academiahttp://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman / Google Scholarhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJhl=en / ISNIhttp://www.isni.org/28810209 / Mendeleyhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/ / MicrosoftAcademichttp://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman / ORCIDhttp://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727 / ResearcherIDhttp://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253DInit=YesSrcApp=CRreturnCode=ROUTER.SuccessSID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK /
[GOAL] Re: Why are we still publishing journals anyways?
Heather your question is valid and his been raised and debated in many places. But change does happen, albeit indeed at a very slow pace. Scholars are indeed conservative in their work habit,s and maybe there's even a good side to that. Without elaborating too much I think we may expect to see: - The further rise of megajournals/plaforms, reducing the number of publication venues from some 50,000 to less than 1,000 - The relative growth of imortance of datapublications, with the article just an ad for or intepretation of the data - In the long run perhaps the rise of networked scholarly nanopublications, roughly along the lines of the wikipedia model Of course this is all mere conjecture and will probably prove wrong, but it's the most likely path I can imagine at this moment. Best, Jeroen Op 6 apr. 2015 om 08:16 heeft Gavin Moodie gavin.moo...@rmit.edu.aumailto:gavin.moo...@rmit.edu.au het volgende geschreven: Thanx very much to Heather for drawing attention to Odlyzko's (1995) paper, which I hadn't seen before. It was most interesting to be returned to the days when all those without access to Mosaic had to do was to write a few commands to get an ftp file sent to them! It was also interesting to read Odlyzko's discussion of the pressures on peer reviewing even then and his discussion with Stevan Harnad of various options for open access. In the first 2 sentences of his abstract Odlyzko predicts that - 'Scholarly publishing is on the verge of a drastic change from print journals to electronic ones. Although this change has been predicted for a long time, trends in technology and growth in the literature are making this transition inevitable. It is likely to occur in a few years, and it its likely to be sudden.' One reason for this prediction being so spectacularly wrong at least in its timing, and an answer to Heather's question about why scholars cling to a technology that is optimal for paper and mail distribution, may be derived from Schaffner's (1994) account of the evolution of scientific journals in the mid 17th century which Odlyzko paraphrases - '. . . owed little to technological developments, and was driven by developments in scholarly culture. Also, while scholars may be intellectually adventurous, they tend to be conservative in their work habits.' Gavin Odlyzko, Andrew M (1995) Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, volume 42, issue 1, pages 71-172. Schaffner, Ann C (1994) The future of scientific journals: lessons from the past, Information Technology and Libraries, volumehttp://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/37730/Information+Technology+and+Libraries/01994Y12Y01$23Dec+1994$3b++Vol.+13+$284$29/13/4?accountid=1355213, number 4, pages 239-40. Gavin Moodie, PhD Adjunct Professor in the Department of Leadership, Higher, and Adult Education OISE, University of Toronto Adjunct professor of education at RMIT University, Australia 22 Sussex Avenue Toronto, ON, M5S 1J5 Canada Mobile +1 416 806 3597 gavin.moo...@rmit.edu.aumailto:gavin.moo...@rmit.edu.au http://rmit.academia.edu/GavinMoodie On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: The discussion about traditional and predatory journals seems to be missing a key point: why are we still publishing journals anyways? The format was developed in the 1600's and was the state of the art technology for dissemination of scholarly work at the time. Today we have the World Wide Web: why do we cling to a technology that is optimal for paper and mail distribution? Odlyzko wrote in 1994 about the forthcoming demise of the scholarly journal as tragic loss or good riddance: http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/tragic.loss.txt best, Heather Morrison ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers
Dear Yves and others, It is indeed naive not to reckon with hierarchies. But is is also wise to consider that: - views of hierarchies may differ over various cultures and languages areas - hierarchies are based on images of what is or should be important or leading - images of hierarchies are influenced by power relations between (groups of) researchers (by country, age, role in academia etc.) - published hierarchies are very much disputed These points make that it is not by definition foolish to publish in a journal low in your or even 'the' hierarchy. What would be foolish however is to assess, judge, award, hire or fund someone based on the lid of the silo that person has published in. I'm convinced that in the long run academia will recognize that. You can already see it happening in e.g. Germany, UK and the Netherlands. Best, Jeroen Op 6 apr. 2015 om 08:36 heeft Gingras, Yves gingras.y...@uqam.camailto:gingras.y...@uqam.ca het volgende geschreven: In any given research speciatly who is not an individual but the community. Just ask a bunch of physicists (random selection of 50 say) and ask them the difference between, say, Physical Review and Il Nuovo Cimento or even Physics Letters and Physical Review Letters (all publish essentially in English despite their name). This hierarchy is most of the time implicit and change over time. I do not like talks of naiveté but since you launched it: it would seem the most naïve is the one who ignore the hierarchy of journals existing in any field... That is my last take on this. Best regards to all. Yves Gingras De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Jacinto Dávila [jacinto.dav...@gmail.commailto:jacinto.dav...@gmail.com] Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 10:45 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers This would seem to me the more naïve idea of all: the hierarchy of the legitimate journals . Legitimate according to who? El 5/4/2015 1:21, Gingras, Yves gingras.y...@uqam.camailto:gingras.y...@uqam.ca escribió: Hello all In all this debate about what are obviously predatory journals that just want to make fast money before disappearing, has anybody asked the basic question: do we really need any new journal in any scientific field? There are already plenty of legitimate journals around in most specialties of science and no obvious need to create new ones. I receive regularly invitations to publish in those new journals and I consider the very fact of receiving them as a sufficient proof that one should not publish in those venues. I think that many who accept to publish there are researchers that are not very much aware of the hierarchy of the legitimate journals in their field and who are thus at the peripehery of their field and pressured to publish irrespective of the legitimacy of the journals chosen. The fact that papers have been tansformed from unit of knowledge into units of evaluation, contributes to this tendency to try to publish anything anywhere. And predators are bright enough to play the rhetorical card of south versus north, dominant versus dominated to convince these researchers to create their own local niche to publish their discoveries, as if the idea of universal knowledge was a naïveté of the past... Yves Gingras De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Mauricio Tuffani [mauri...@tuffani.netmailto:mauri...@tuffani.net] Date d'envoi : 4 avril 2015 17:07 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers Dear Mr. Bosman, Thank you for your attention and for taking the time in your answer. Although I am not an expert in academic publishing, I know some of the conflicts involving this activity. I have pointed out in predatory journals the affront to the same principles of transparency and accountability highlighted for you. I know that the big publishers also have journals that publish rubbish. I myself have written about this, including exposing Elsevier. But I'm not an activist or a policy maker. My priority as a journalist is to show what does not work. It is show, for example, that information widely publicized, as the list of Mr. Beall, several reports and many other sources were not even considered by some 2,000 experts from the 48 advisory committees of the Brazilian federal agency Capes. And the result of all this is waste pointed out by me and accepted by Qualis. I have not finished counting, but at least 240 Brazilian universities and other institutions were already affected by publication in journals of poor quality. Regardless of all this, let me show a
[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers
Jeroen wrote: What would be foolish however is to assess, judge, award, hire or fund someone based on the lid of the silo that person has published in. I'm convinced that in the long run academia will recognize that. You can already see it happening in e.g. Germany, UK and the Netherlands. I see little sign of this happening in the UK (albeit I'm in Japan these days but I keep in good touch with colleagues in the UK). If anything the RAE and now the REF has made hiring in particular, but also promotion, more slavishly attached to things like Impact Factors. In the runup to the recent REF one department I know of had a requirement that all staff attempt to publish four papers during the REF asssessment period in journals with an IF greater than 1. No suggestion even that publishing in a journal with a lower impact factor but achieving high citation rates (I published a paper in an OA (no-APCs) journal with 2013 SJR of 0.9 which has received well over 100 citations) would be acceptable. It had to be an an IF1 journal for inclusion in the REF return. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] RE : Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers
Hello Jeroen A last response Maybe because I tend to magine cultivated readers instaead of ignorabimus, I thought it was obvious to all that hierarchies differ, are based on images, influence by power relations, disputed, etc. No need here to rehearse postmodern rhetoric 101 to the readers of this list. You seem to conflate (I would not dare to say naively...) what is and what should be. You can be against hierarchy and denounce them if you wish but what you write just confirm that they exist, just as social inequalities exist, though they obviously are based on power relations, as everything else. I was just describing a reality that any sociologist worth his/her salt would find obvious. That being said, you can always organize an Activist Society Against Hierarchies (ASAH) and propose to all researchers to publish in totally unknown journals written in esperanto. You may convicne a few naive researchers after all. But this has nothing to do with what I was describing. I am used to see academics who like to convince themselves to be the avant-garde by explaining to others obvious things they think to be alone in understanding. So, good for you if you can convince yourself that in the long run academia will recognize that. But as John Maynard Keynes, used to say, in the long run, we are all dead. Best regards Yves Gingras De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nl] Date d'envoi : 6 avril 2015 12:08 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers Dear Yves and others, It is indeed naive not to reckon with hierarchies. But is is also wise to consider that: - views of hierarchies may differ over various cultures and languages areas - hierarchies are based on images of what is or should be important or leading - images of hierarchies are influenced by power relations between (groups of) researchers (by country, age, role in academia etc.) - published hierarchies are very much disputed These points make that it is not by definition foolish to publish in a journal low in your or even 'the' hierarchy. What would be foolish however is to assess, judge, award, hire or fund someone based on the lid of the silo that person has published in. I'm convinced that in the long run academia will recognize that. You can already see it happening in e.g. Germany, UK and the Netherlands. Best, Jeroen Op 6 apr. 2015 om 08:36 heeft Gingras, Yves gingras.y...@uqam.camailto:gingras.y...@uqam.ca het volgende geschreven: In any given research speciatly who is not an individual but the community. Just ask a bunch of physicists (random selection of 50 say) and ask them the difference between, say, Physical Review and Il Nuovo Cimento or even Physics Letters and Physical Review Letters (all publish essentially in English despite their name). This hierarchy is most of the time implicit and change over time. I do not like talks of naiveté but since you launched it: it would seem the most naïve is the one who ignore the hierarchy of journals existing in any field... That is my last take on this. Best regards to all. Yves Gingras De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Jacinto Dávila [jacinto.dav...@gmail.commailto:jacinto.dav...@gmail.com] Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 10:45 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers This would seem to me the more naïve idea of all: the hierarchy of the legitimate journals . Legitimate according to who? El 5/4/2015 1:21, Gingras, Yves gingras.y...@uqam.camailto:gingras.y...@uqam.ca escribió: Hello all In all this debate about what are obviously predatory journals that just want to make fast money before disappearing, has anybody asked the basic question: do we really need any new journal in any scientific field? There are already plenty of legitimate journals around in most specialties of science and no obvious need to create new ones. I receive regularly invitations to publish in those new journals and I consider the very fact of receiving them as a sufficient proof that one should not publish in those venues. I think that many who accept to publish there are researchers that are not very much aware of the hierarchy of the legitimate journals in their field and who are thus at the peripehery of their field and pressured to publish irrespective of the legitimacy of the journals chosen. The fact that papers have been tansformed from unit of knowledge into units of evaluation, contributes to this tendency to try to publish anything anywhere. And predators are bright enough to play the rhetorical card of south versus north,
[GOAL] RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers
In any given research speciatly who is not an individual but the community. Just ask a bunch of physicists (random selection of 50 say) and ask them the difference between, say, Physical Review and Il Nuovo Cimento or even Physics Letters and Physical Review Letters (all publish essentially in English despite their name). This hierarchy is most of the time implicit and change over time. I do not like talks of naiveté but since you launched it: it would seem the most naïve is the one who ignore the hierarchy of journals existing in any field... That is my last take on this. Best regards to all. Yves Gingras De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Jacinto Dávila [jacinto.dav...@gmail.com] Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 10:45 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers This would seem to me the more naïve idea of all: the hierarchy of the legitimate journals . Legitimate according to who? El 5/4/2015 1:21, Gingras, Yves gingras.y...@uqam.camailto:gingras.y...@uqam.ca escribió: Hello all In all this debate about what are obviously predatory journals that just want to make fast money before disappearing, has anybody asked the basic question: do we really need any new journal in any scientific field? There are already plenty of legitimate journals around in most specialties of science and no obvious need to create new ones. I receive regularly invitations to publish in those new journals and I consider the very fact of receiving them as a sufficient proof that one should not publish in those venues. I think that many who accept to publish there are researchers that are not very much aware of the hierarchy of the legitimate journals in their field and who are thus at the peripehery of their field and pressured to publish irrespective of the legitimacy of the journals chosen. The fact that papers have been tansformed from unit of knowledge into units of evaluation, contributes to this tendency to try to publish anything anywhere. And predators are bright enough to play the rhetorical card of south versus north, dominant versus dominated to convince these researchers to create their own local niche to publish their discoveries, as if the idea of universal knowledge was a naïveté of the past... Yves Gingras De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Mauricio Tuffani [mauri...@tuffani.netmailto:mauri...@tuffani.net] Date d'envoi : 4 avril 2015 17:07 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers Dear Mr. Bosman, Thank you for your attention and for taking the time in your answer. Although I am not an expert in academic publishing, I know some of the conflicts involving this activity. I have pointed out in predatory journals the affront to the same principles of transparency and accountability highlighted for you. I know that the big publishers also have journals that publish rubbish. I myself have written about this, including exposing Elsevier. But I'm not an activist or a policy maker. My priority as a journalist is to show what does not work. It is show, for example, that information widely publicized, as the list of Mr. Beall, several reports and many other sources were not even considered by some 2,000 experts from the 48 advisory committees of the Brazilian federal agency Capes. And the result of all this is waste pointed out by me and accepted by Qualis. I have not finished counting, but at least 240 Brazilian universities and other institutions were already affected by publication in journals of poor quality. Regardless of all this, let me show a quick personal assessment that may interest for those who think strategically about the OA. In the current political moment in Brazil, one of the worst things you can do is to introduce, for example, the north-south opposition and most other related topics. This approach certainly result in a ideological polarization that will eliminate any possibility of rational discussion. It would have been very easy for me to interview some academics who hate the government Dilma and also the president of Capes, which is in this position since the beginning of Lula's administration in 2003. They certainly would express devastating comments, but that's not what I want. As I said, if the growing garbage from predatory journals in Brazil continues to be ignored, it will Become much larger. And it will be very bad for the OA. Maurício Tuffani http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani mauri...@tuffani.netmailto:mauri...@tuffani.net 2015-04-04 13:51 GMT-03:00 Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl: Dear Mr. Tuffani and others, I think you are doing good
[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers
Let's talk about strategies. The OA movement is a collective effort to draft a definition of Open Access, not for its own sake, but to identify the best practices to distribute and preserve knowledge and sustain the great conversation of Science. To that effect, this community has looked for historical reasons to procure the widest possible access to the results of scientific research. While doing this, serious disparities, not to say disadvantages, have been detected for researchers, not only to have access to those results, but to have opportunities to publish their own. I understand, OA is also about addressing those disparities. But it is impossible to address them without facing interests in favour of the status quo. Furthermore, it is very hard to address them without greater community support and political will, itself hard to gather given the fact that this is a global campaign involving many nations and cultures. But that is the strategy as far as one can see it. OA alone is not going to solve all the problems of humanity. In particular, abusive behaviours, others than those supporting the disparities, require specific measures. It is a wider issue. But we cannot simply accept the fallacy that because it is open access is abusive and predatory and low quality. We cannot take that OA is doomed to low quality by some biased or simplistic analysis http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full. It is, of course, a very efficient media strategy to connect it with predatory-low quality behaviour to discredit open access. It is, as they say in the free software community: FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt, to lead people to believe that only because a publisher hangs pdfs on-line, free to download, that journal is suspicious. Do they want to test the quality of publishers like WSEAS?. Go ahead. I have published with them (as I have published with closed journals). I can confirm that annoying, almost spam producing, display of messages inviting to their conferences. But, wait!, I also get that from others like IEEE. I don't think the work we published with the former is of lower quality than the others. But, there it is for inspection and testing. I can explain why we did it, how we chose to do it, how we did not have to blackmail anybody, how we were not blackmailed, how we did get feedback and I can even explain the experience of going to a conference and then having your paper selected for publication, that some people find unusual. I can't complain to WSEAS for calling themselves OA just for the same reason I can't complain that they're calling themselves Folha do S. Paulo. They are not!. But I can say that whatever issue they might have with quality, it is not because they allow free inspection of their papers. This is an advantage for quality's sake. On 5 April 2015 at 08:16, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Dear Yves and others, Of course we could discuss what “a hierarchy of legitimate journals” is and whether one should base submission decisions on such hierarchies. But that would be another thread I think. What concerns me here is your question on the need for more journals. Overall I would agree that we do not need more journals. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the current journals suffice. We need **other** journals. For instance, in the field I serve (human geography) there is a dire need for journals with these characteristics: - fully Open Access - online only - CC-BY license - authors retain copyright - maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model like that at PeerJ) - APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries) - really international profile of editors/board (far beyond US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR) - no issues: continuous publishing - in principle no size restrictions - using ORCID and DOI of course - peer review along PLOS One idea: only check for (methodological) soundness (and whether it is no obvious garbage or plagiarism), avoiding costly system of multiple cascading submissions/rejections - post pub open non anonymous peer review, so the community decides what is the worth of published papers - peer review reports themselves are citable and have DOIs - making (small) updates to articles possible (i.e. creating an updated version) - making it easy to link to additional material (data, video, code etc.) shared via external platforms like Zenodo or Figshare - no IF advertising - open for text mining - providing a suite of article level metrics - using e.g. LOCKSS or Portico for digital preservation - indexing at least by Google Scholar and DOAJ, at a later stage also Scopus, Web of Science and others - optionally a pre-print archive (but could rely on SSRN as well) I would call them forward looking Open Access journals. They are just not present in the English language in my field. And that may be true for many other field. Would you
[GOAL] RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers
Helllo Journals do evolve: they already did by going on-line and -- for many -- paperless. Many are continuous already trough online first, etc. Most of the elements on your list can be incorporated in the future without problems. I will not go through it one by one for it would be tedious, but becoming other is what evolution do... Yves Gingras De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nl] Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 08:46 À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers Dear Yves and others, Of course we could discuss what “a hierarchy of legitimate journals” is and whether one should base submission decisions on such hierarchies. But that would be another thread I think. What concerns me here is your question on the need for more journals. Overall I would agree that we do not need more journals. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the current journals suffice. We need *other* journals. For instance, in the field I serve (human geography) there is a dire need for journals with these characteristics: - fully Open Access - online only - CC-BY license - authors retain copyright - maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model like that at PeerJ) - APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries) - really international profile of editors/board (far beyond US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR) - no issues: continuous publishing - in principle no size restrictions - using ORCID and DOI of course - peer review along PLOS One idea: only check for (methodological) soundness (and whether it is no obvious garbage or plagiarism), avoiding costly system of multiple cascading submissions/rejections - post pub open non anonymous peer review, so the community decides what is the worth of published papers - peer review reports themselves are citable and have DOIs - making (small) updates to articles possible (i.e. creating an updated version) - making it easy to link to additional material (data, video, code etc.) shared via external platforms like Zenodo or Figshare - no IF advertising - open for text mining - providing a suite of article level metrics - using e.g. LOCKSS or Portico for digital preservation - indexing at least by Google Scholar and DOAJ, at a later stage also Scopus, Web of Science and others - optionally a pre-print archive (but could rely on SSRN as well) I would call them forward looking Open Access journals. They are just not present in the English language in my field. And that may be true for many other field. Would you agree that we do not need *more* journals but that we do still need *other* journals? Kind regards, Jeroen [101-innovations-icon-very-small] 101 innovations in scholarly communicationhttp://innoscholcomm.silk.co/ Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl telephone: +31.30.2536613 mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht web: Jeroen Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU profiles: : Academiahttp://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman / Google Scholarhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJhl=en / ISNIhttp://www.isni.org/28810209 / Mendeleyhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/ / MicrosoftAcademichttp://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman / ORCIDhttp://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727 / ResearcherIDhttp://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253DInit=YesSrcApp=CRreturnCode=ROUTER.SuccessSID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK / ResearchGatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/ / Scopushttp://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484 / Slidesharehttp://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero / VIAFhttp://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/ / Worldcathttp://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619 blogging at: IM 2.0http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/ / Ref4UUhttp://ref4uu.blogspot.com/ - Trees say printing is a thing of the past From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Gingras, Yves Sent: zondag 5 april 2015 1:48 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers Hello all In all this debate about what are obviously predatory journals that just want to make fast money before disappearing, has anybody asked the basic question: do we really need any new journal in any scientific field? There
