hi Michael,
$1,350 USD plus or minus 25% is less than $2,000 USD, agreed.
Can you explain what PLOS ONE does that justifies the $1,350 USD APC?
My impression from my one attempt to serve as a PLOS ONE reviewer is that the
model aims at something close to full automation of the process.
Drawing from interviews and focus groups with editors of small scholar-led
journals, I've developed one generous model that illustrates how $1,300 per
article or a $25,000 / year journal subsidy can generously a support small open
access journal. In brief, for a small journal publishing only 20
In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes:
I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake impact
factors and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:..
This is totally mean spirited. This is small.
DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to
review the quality
The subject header should of course have read Fair Gold vs
Apologies for the typo. (Someone will surely find a punny in there...)
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:
Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should
be because
Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should be
because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not
think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally
mandated and provided: Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold
http://j.mp/foolsGOLDoa.
In defending Jeffrey Beall, Michael Schwartz writes:
Gratuitous insulting comments about [] character are inappropriate, to say the
least.”
I assume that Michael hasn’t read much of Mr Beall’s writings. Or is he being
ironic?
David
On 14 May 2015, at 15:14, Michael Schwartz
Surprisingly, Dr. Schwartz has not yet noticed that a rather open and
vigorous debate about OA has been going on for the better part of two
decades, including debates among OA supporters. Mr. Beall is absolutely
welcomed in this debate, so long as he debates (as opposed to taking
potshots, for
I've read Mr Beall's writings. I'm not being ironic.
How can the choir speak to more than the choir?
Michael Schwartz
Sent from my iPhone
On May 14, 2015, at 9:59 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote:
In defending Jeffrey Beall, Michael Schwartz writes:
Gratuitous insulting
Jean-Claude Guédon's comment on Jeffrey Beall's Blog is totally mean
spiritedsmall.
The many ongoing changes, consolidations, and innovations associated with open
access require vigorous, open, and respectful debate. Presently in today's OA,
we see the good...the bad...and the ugly. There
That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian Science
Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462
best falk
Falk Reckling, PhD
Strategic Analysis
Department Head
Austrian Science Fund
On 14 May 2015 at 21:19, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
wrote:
We need to talk about copyediting. There are arguments for and against
blind vs. open peer review, but blind copyediting is just silly. Many
authors can do their own copyediting and proofreading; and when outside
Thanks Stevan.
Your comments are very helpful to my research, especially the corrections to my
estimates on editing, and so I've copied them and replied on the blog:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon
jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:
We are back here on an old debate between Stevan and myself.
My take on all this is:
1. Authors seek ways to obtain prestige and visibility; currently,
journals are about the only way to achieve
Well stated, Jean-Claude.
I was not speaking in my role as a psychiatrist here - I speak as an advocate
of open access - but substantially less enthusiastic than I was years ago.
And you folks DO have a lot of power...
So does Beall's list of Predatory Publishers.
Yes everyone and all of us
We are back here on an old debate between Stevan and myself.
My take on all this is:
1. Authors seek ways to obtain prestige and visibility; currently,
journals are about the only way to achieve this;
2. Prestige and visibility of researchers are linked to journals that
act as logos. The impact
It is true that distributing publication services locally would diminish
the risk of currency fluctuations affecting APC stability, but it does not
necessarily reduce costs for authors. I am sure, for example, that most
authors would be happier to pay APCs that varied +/- 25% around $1350 than
Also worth noting that a flat APC in one currency actually equates to a price
decrease in real terms over time.
The effect of regional pricing in real terms is quite a bit less when you
factor in e.g. local inflation.
On 14/05/2015 07:08:49, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com wrote:
It is true
17 matches
Mail list logo
