[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 / ResearchGatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile
[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
[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
