[GOAL] Re: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

2013-12-24 Thread Bosman, J.M. 
Dear Wouter,

There is a lot to say in support of more tranparency. For any system to succeed 
it will need wide adoption. So perhaps Elsevier and Thomson Reuters could join 
forces here and decide on a commonly used system to be comprehensively 
available in Scopus as well as WoS and preferably on a open platform (Scimago? 
DOAJ?) as well.

A problem will be the nested nature of this star rating. What about e.g. 
qualifying for 5 but not for 4 stars when a jounal has open but anonymous 
review reports? And there are other examples where this nesting will prove to 
be problematic. Why not just publish the transparency data without turining 
them into a ranking or rating system? Of course the data should be available 
for downloading, filtering, sorting etc.

best,
Jeroen

PS Personally I would also applaud Scopus if it used paper/chapter submittance 
dates instead of or along with publication years. Publication years are often 
not very useful for dating content.

Op 23 dec. 2013 om 22:12 heeft "Gerritsma, Wouter" 
mailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl>> het volgende 
geschreven:

Dear Claire and other members of OASPA, COPE, DOAJ & WAME

Paper is patient. Journal will explain that they do peer review, double blind, 
whatever you wish.
But I think you should award journals for their degree in transparency for the 
peer review process.
http://wowter.net/2013/12/24/towards-five-stars-transparent-pre-publication-peer-review/

Yours sincerely
Wouter Gerritsma

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Claire Redhead
Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice 
in Scholarly Publishing

The Committee on Publication Ethics, the 
Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access 
Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association 
of Medical Editors 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
 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
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: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

2013-12-23 Thread Gerritsma, Wouter 
Dear Claire and other members of OASPA, COPE, DOAJ & WAME

Paper is patient. Journal will explain that they do peer review, double blind, 
whatever you wish.
But I think you should award journals for their degree in transparency for the 
peer review process.
http://wowter.net/2013/12/24/towards-five-stars-transparent-pre-publication-peer-review/

Yours sincerely
Wouter Gerritsma

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Claire Redhead
Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice 
in Scholarly Publishing

The Committee on Publication Ethics, the 
Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access 
Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association 
of Medical Editors 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
 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
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

2013-12-22 Thread Bo-Christer Björk 

Dear Dana,

Unfortunately this is only partly true. The "epub ahead of print" 
practices vary a lot. Even though articles after acceptance could be 
copy-edited straight away and posted, editors and publishers don't want 
to have excessive lists of dozens of articles up there, especially if 
they haven't been assigned issues and page numbers yet. That would in 
itself be bad publicity. For instance  JASIST in which I have published 
several articles recently tends to put up eprints a couple of months 
before final publishing, which means they could have waited half a year 
from acceptance already.


A real horror story of a journal is Journal of Civil Engineering and 
Management (a Tailor and Frances journal, but essentially run by editors 
from a Lithuanian university). Together with a collegue we had an 
article accepted in March 2012 which still is waiting to be published. 
And they don't do epubs before print. While this is bad service their 
practice of publishing articles from Lituanian colleagues much faster 
than the rest (can be studied at the websiteI) is clearly unethical.


Bo-Christer



On 12/21/13 8:52 PM, Dana Roth wrote:


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
dzr...@library.caltech.edu <mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

*From:*goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On 
Behalf Of *Bo-Christer Björk

*Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:27 AM
*To:* goal@eprints.org
*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 
<http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/%7Esugimoto/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

wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl <mailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl%0d>

wageningenur.nl/library <http://wageningenur.nl/library>

@wowter <http://twitter.com/Wowter/>

wowter.net <http://wowter.net/>

#AWCP http://tinyurl.com/mk65m36

*From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Claire Redhead
*Sent:* donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
*To:* goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org>
*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
o

[GOAL] Re: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

2013-12-21 Thread Ted Bergstrom 

Wouter,
  Perhaps a sample of what you are looking for is found in the annual 
reports for the American Economic Association Journals. These normally 
appear in the May Papers and Proceedings issue. Here is a link to the 
most recent one


https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.3

Take a look, for example at the reports for the American Economic Review 
and for the

various American Economic Journal: xxx
They report the number of articles submitted, number accepted,  a list 
of referees, and so on. I think they also at least sometimes report 
figures on delay times from submission to acceptance and or publication.


The January issues of Econometrica also have annual reports that include 
most of this information.


I would be interested to hear about other similar information that you 
uncover.


Cheers,
Ted



On 12/21/13 11:50 AM, Gerritsma, Wouter wrote:


Dear Bo-Christer,

I am aware of the really useful studies your group makes.

However, I am looking into the the transparence of the eer review 
process on the journals side.


A self included analysis on the journals side, say yearly, on the 
number of submissions, the acceptance rates would be helpful as an 
indicators for transparence of the peer review process. Another of 
such examples is thanking the peer reviewers eg. 
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0737-8831&volume=31&issue=4&articleid=17099955&show=html 
In that case you have an indication that additional people (beyonf the 
editorial board) wer involved in the peer review process.


Thanks for your reading tips. But it is not exactly what I was looking 
for.


Wouter

*From:*goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On 
Behalf Of *Bo-Christer Björk

*Sent:* zaterdag 21 december 2013 18:27
*To:* goal@eprints.org
*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 
<http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/%7Esugimoto/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

wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl <mailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl%0d>

wageningenur.nl/library <http://wageningenur.nl/library>

@wowter <http://twitter.com/Wowter/>

wowter.net <http://wowter.net/>

#AWCP http://tinyurl.com/mk65m36

*From:*goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Claire Redhead
*Sent:* donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
*To:* goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org>
*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] Re: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

2013-12-21 Thread Gerritsma, Wouter 
Dear Bo-Christer,

I am aware of the really useful studies your group makes.
However, I am looking into the the transparence of the eer review process on 
the journals side.
A self included analysis on the journals side, say yearly, on the number of 
submissions, the acceptance rates would be helpful as an indicators for 
transparence of the peer review process. Another of such examples is thanking 
the peer reviewers eg. 
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0737-8831&volume=31&issue=4&articleid=17099955&show=html
 In that case you have an indication that additional people (beyonf the 
editorial board) wer involved in the peer review process.

Thanks for your reading tips. But it is not exactly what I was looking for.

Wouter


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Bo-Christer Björk
Sent: zaterdag 21 december 2013 18:27
To: goal@eprints.org
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
wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl<mailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl%0d>
wageningenur.nl/library<http://wageningenur.nl/library>
@wowter<http://twitter.com/Wowter/>
wowter.net<http://wowter.net/>

#AWCP http://tinyurl.com/mk65m36



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Claire Redhead
Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>
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

GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

2013-12-21 Thread Bosman, J.M. 
Wouter,

Scirev, though having been live for a only a few weeks now, already has 
hundreds of crowdsourced journal reviews with information on peer review turn 
around times: http://scirev.sc/

But it would be nice indeed if we had more comprehensive data on this.

Best,
Jeroen



Op 21 dec. 2013 om 18:02 heeft "Gerritsma, Wouter" 
mailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl>> het volgende 
geschreven:

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
wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl
wageningenur.nl/library
@wowter
wowter.net

#AWCP http://tinyurl.com/mk65m36



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Claire Redhead
Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice 
in Scholarly Publishing

The Committee on Publication Ethics, the 
Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access 
Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association 
of Medical Editors 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
 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
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: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

2013-12-21 Thread Dana Roth 
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
dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Bo-Christer Björk
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:27 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
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
wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl<mailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl%0d>
wageningenur.nl/library<http://wageningenur.nl/library>
@wowter<http://twitter.com/Wowter/>
wowter.net<http://wowter.net/>

#AWCP http://tinyurl.com/mk65m36



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Claire Redhead
Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>
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

GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

2013-12-21 Thread Bo-Christer Björk 

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

wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl __

wageningenur.nl/library 

@wowter 

wowter.net 

#AWCPhttp://tinyurl.com/mk65m36

*From:*goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On 
Behalf Of *Claire Redhead

*Sent:* donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
*To:* goal@eprints.org
*Subject:* [GOAL] Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and 
Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing


The Committee on Publication Ethics 
, the Directory of Open Access 
Journals , the Open Access Scholarly Publishers 
Association , and the World Association of Medical 
Editors 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 
 
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
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: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

2013-12-21 Thread Gerritsma, Wouter 
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
wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl
wageningenur.nl/library
@wowter
wowter.net

#AWCP http://tinyurl.com/mk65m36



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Claire Redhead
Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice 
in Scholarly Publishing

The Committee on Publication Ethics, the 
Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access 
Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association 
of Medical Editors 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
 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
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal