[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Eric,

Though I agree simply accepting one man’s list is not sustainable, I doubt 
creating yet another list is the best way forward. There are already so many 
lists out there. Every new initiative seems to dilute and weaken efforts. 
Please let’s just try to tie the initiatives together (e.g. DOAJ, Sherpa/Romeo 
and QOAM/SciRev) and making them as open and transparent as possible. For a 
list of these lists check our tools database (data tab, category 23, rows 
409-424): http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list.

Best,
Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations: tools 
database | 
survey

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Library
email: 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 
Bosman
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academia / Google 
Scholar / 
ISNI /
Mendeley / 
MicrosoftAcademic
 / ORCID / 
ResearcherID
 /
ResearchGate / 
Scopus /  
Slideshare /  
VIAF /  
Worldcat
blogging at: I 2.0 / 
Ref4UU
-
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: zaterdag 3 oktober 2015 17:16
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals 
Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

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 

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

[Dana Roth]

Jeron makes some excellent points ... I would hope that we could stop lumping 
all subscription journals together and distinguish between non-profit society 
journals and commercial journals.

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 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 [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Bosman, 
J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nl]
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 9:02 AM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and 
Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

Dear Eric,

Though I agree simply accepting one man’s list is not sustainable, I doubt 
creating yet another list is the best way forward. There are already so many 
lists out there. Every new initiative seems to dilute and weaken efforts. 
Please let’s just try to tie the initiatives together (e.g. DOAJ, Sherpa/Romeo 
and QOAM/SciRev) and making them as open and transparent as possible. For a 
list of these lists check our tools database (data tab, category 23, rows 
409-424): http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list.

Best,
Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations: tools 
database<http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list> | 
survey<https://101innovations.wordpress.com/>

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Library<http://www.uu.nl/library>
email: j.bos...@uu.nl<mailto: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 
Bosman<http://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx>
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academia<http://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman> / Google 
Scholar<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJ=en> / 
ISNI<http://www.isni.org/28810209> /
Mendeley<http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/> / 
MicrosoftAcademic<http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman>
 / ORCID<http://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727> / 
ResearcherID<http://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253D=Yes=CR=ROUTER.Success=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK>
 /
ResearchGate<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/> / 
Scopus<http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484> /  
Slideshare<http://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero> /  
VIAF<http://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/> /  
Worldcat<http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619>
blogging at: I 2.0<http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/> / 
Ref4UU<http://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 
Éric Archambault
Sent: zaterdag 3 oktober 2015 17:16
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals 
Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

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

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

[Éric Archambault]

Hi Jeroen

Good point. I don’t necessarily argue for a new list, improving/merging 
existing tools may indeed be the way to go.

Eric



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)
Sent: October-04-15 12:03 PM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and 
Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

Dear Eric,

Though I agree simply accepting one man’s list is not sustainable, I doubt 
creating yet another list is the best way forward. There are already so many 
lists out there. Every new initiative seems to dilute and weaken efforts. 
Please let’s just try to tie the initiatives together (e.g. DOAJ, Sherpa/Romeo 
and QOAM/SciRev) and making them as open and transparent as possible. For a 
list of these lists check our tools database (data tab, category 23, rows 
409-424): http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list.

Best,
Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations: tools 
database<http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list> | 
survey<https://101innovations.wordpress.com/>

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Library<http://www.uu.nl/library>
email: j.bos...@uu.nl<mailto: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 
Bosman<http://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx>
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academia<http://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman> / Google 
Scholar<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJ=en> / 
ISNI<http://www.isni.org/28810209> /
Mendeley<http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/> / 
MicrosoftAcademic<http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman>
 / ORCID<http://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727> / 
ResearcherID<http://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253D=Yes=CR=ROUTER.Success=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK>
 /
ResearchGate<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/> / 
Scopus<http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484> /  
Slideshare<http://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero> /  
VIAF<http://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/> /  
Worldcat<http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619>
blogging at: I 2.0<http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/> / 
Ref4UU<http://ref4uu.blogspot.com/>
-
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Éric Archambault
Sent: zaterdag 3 oktober 2015 17:16
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals 
Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

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 Th

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning

[Jan Velterop]

All I want to say is that I agree wholeheartedly with Chris. He definitely 
isn't the only one to be outraged. 

Johannes (Jan) J M Velterop

Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos. 

> On 3 Oct 2015, at 11:32, Chris Zielinski  wrote:
> 
> I have no personal involvement in this issue (other than being aghast when 
> SciELO appeared on the List of Predatory Journals recently - it now seems to 
> have been removed, after multiple protests) and don't know any of the 
> participants personally, but I can't be the only one who finds this post from 
> Beall outrageous, with its insinuations that Archambault has a financial 
> motive for his post, and may be racist. Archambault's reply is far, far too 
> polite!
> 
> Chris
> Chris Zielinski
> ch...@chriszielinski.com
> Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com 
> Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net
> 
>> On 2 October 2015 at 15:55, Beall, Jeffrey  
>> wrote:
>> Eric:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I have two questions.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 1. For the record, does your for-profit business or do you personally have 
>> any business relationship with any of the publishers or journals on my 
>> lists? If so, which ones?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 2. In your email you refer to a recently-published article, and you name and 
>> discuss the second author, but you fail to mention or credit the lead and 
>> corresponding author, Cenyu Shen. Was this because of his race?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Jeffrey Beall
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Éric Archambault
>> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:38 AM
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci 
>> Subject: [GOAL] Need for a new beginning
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear list members:
>> 
>> What started as a one-man, useful list that identified “Potential, possible, 
>> or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”, which Jeffrey 
>> himself further qualifies as a “list of questionable, scholarly open-access 
>> publishers”, has now overshot its usefulness. We need a new beginning.
>> 
>> If these publishers are questionable, let’s find a mechanism to question 
>> them, and let’s, at the very least, document their answers. Currently, this 
>> list of
>> 
>> Release Date: 10/01/15
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning

[Heather Morrison]

Although I often disagree with Beall and share the concerns of OA colleagues 
about his list, two comments:

It is appropriate to ask about business interests. When Elsevier comments on 
open access policy, it is important to know that their perspective is likely 
influenced by financial motives. This principle applies just as much to 
existing and emerging OA initiatives.

When citing an article one should first cite the first author. Beall was 
correct to critique Eric for not mentioning the first author. The accusation of 
racism was not helpful.

my two bits,

Heather Morrison

On Oct 3, 2015, at 5:56 AM, "Chris Zielinski" 
> wrote:

I have no personal involvement in this issue (other than being aghast when 
SciELO appeared on the List of Predatory Journals recently - it now seems to 
have been removed, after multiple protests) and don't know any of the 
participants personally, but I can't be the only one who finds this post from 
Beall outrageous, with its insinuations that Archambault has a financial motive 
for his post, and may be racist. Archambault's reply is far, far too polite!

Chris

Chris Zielinski
ch...@chriszielinski.com
Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com
Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net

On 2 October 2015 at 15:55, Beall, Jeffrey 
> wrote:
Eric:

I have two questions.

1. For the record, does your for-profit business or do you personally have any 
business relationship with any of the publishers or journals on my lists? If 
so, which ones?

2. In your email you refer to a recently-published article, and you name and 
discuss the second author, but you fail to mention or credit the lead and 
corresponding author, Cenyu Shen. Was this because of his race?

Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:38 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci 
>
Subject: [GOAL] Need for a new beginning

Dear list members:
What started as a one-man, useful list that identified “Potential, possible, or 
probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”, which Jeffrey himself 
further qualifies as a “list of questionable, scholarly open-access 
publishers”, has now overshot its usefulness. We need a new beginning.
If these publishers are questionable, let’s find a mechanism to question them, 
and let’s, at the very least, document their answers. Currently, this list of
Release Date: 10/01/15

___
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 mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning

[Stevan Harnad]

Just to add that I too agree completely with Chris and Jan. Éric (perhaps
out of legal or commercial caution) responded to Beall in a polite deadpan
style, but Beall's posting cannot be described as anything less that
outrageous. A tendentious public query about undeclared interests coupled
with a gratuitous insinuation of racism.

Stevan

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jan Velterop  wrote:

> All I want to say is that I agree wholeheartedly with Chris. He definitely
> isn't the only one to be outraged.
>
> Johannes (Jan) J M Velterop
>
> Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos.
>
> On 3 Oct 2015, at 11:32, Chris Zielinski  wrote:
>
> I have no personal involvement in this issue (other than being aghast when
> SciELO appeared on the List of Predatory Journals recently - it now seems
> to have been removed, after multiple protests) and don't know any of the
> participants personally, but I can't be the only one who finds this post
> from Beall outrageous, with its insinuations that Archambault has a
> financial motive for his post, and may be racist. Archambault's reply is
> far, far too polite!
>
> Chris
>
> Chris Zielinski
> ch...@chriszielinski.com
> Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and
> http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com
> Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net
>
> On 2 October 2015 at 15:55, Beall, Jeffrey 
> wrote:
>
>> Eric:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have two questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. For the record, does your for-profit business or do you personally
>> have any business relationship with any of the publishers or journals on my
>> lists? If so, which ones?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. In your email you refer to a recently-published article, and you name
>> and discuss the second author, but you fail to mention or credit the lead
>> and corresponding author, Cenyu Shen. Was this because of his race?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeffrey Beall
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Éric Archambault
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2015 7:38 AM
>> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci 
>> *Subject:* [GOAL] Need for a new beginning
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear list members:
>>
>> What started as a one-man, useful list that identified “Potential,
>> possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”, which
>> Jeffrey himself further qualifies as a “list of questionable, scholarly
>> open-access publishers”, has now overshot its usefulness. We need a new
>> beginning.
>>
>> If these publishers are questionable, let’s find a mechanism to question
>> them, and let’s, at the very least, document their answers. Currently, this
>> list of
>>
>> Release Date: 10/01/15
>>
>> ___
>> 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 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: Need for a new beginning

[Éric Archambault]

Hi List

I’d like to steer this debate away from individuals and bring it back to the 
questions that need to be addressed in a fairly urgent manner. Though I 
personally don’t agree with many if not most positions that Jeffrey has taken 
over the years on different subjects, and many list members here disagree with 
them with their gut, please bear in mind that Jeffrey is under nearly 
continuous attack, except from the masses turning to his list and increasingly 
calling “predatory” what Jeffrey calls “questionable”. I think it’s difficult 
to show one’s best side under these circumstances. Jeffrey has put a lot of 
effort into this list, and there is no doubt that some journal editors have 
deceptive practices, so kudos to him for alerting the community. His list has a 
lot of traction, and Jeffrey cannot be ignored. I hope that if we stop 
harassing him he will help with his in-depth knowledge, and himself agree that 
this is no longer a piece of work that can be done by one person alone.

I’m re-loading the question on a new thread, I really hope to get 
contributions: we need to navigate with robust instruments, not only with 
personal opinions, however well intentioned. I know many people will disagree 
with me here, and you are free to say so – but please do it on this thread, not 
on the reloaded one.

Eric
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

[Heather Morrison]

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" 
>
 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: 
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com
Web:science-metrix.com
 1science.com

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

[Nicolas Pettiaux]

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 
 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" 
 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).

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

[Dana Roth]

I not sure I understand Eric's 'unaddressed problem'.  Web of Science has a 
very rigorous selection policy and Jeffrey Beall has an informative listing of 
'suspect' OA journals.  Shouldn't these resources provide prospective authors 
with sufficient information to make an informed decision on where or where not 
to publish?

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]

Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2015 8:55 AM

To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)

Subject: [GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and 
Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded






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" 
<eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:







BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Arial;color: #00;font-size: 12pt;}P 
{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}




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 b

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning

[Beall, Jeffrey]

Eric:

I have two questions.

1. For the record, does your for-profit business or do you personally have any 
business relationship with any of the publishers or journals on my lists? If 
so, which ones?

2. In your email you refer to a recently-published article, and you name and 
discuss the second author, but you fail to mention or credit the lead and 
corresponding author, Cenyu Shen. Was this because of his race?

Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:38 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci 
Subject: [GOAL] Need for a new beginning

Dear list members:
What started as a one-man, useful list that identified “Potential, possible, or 
probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”, which Jeffrey himself 
further qualifies as a “list of questionable, scholarly open-access 
publishers”, has now overshot its usefulness. We need a new beginning.
If these publishers are questionable, let’s find a mechanism to question them, 
and let’s, at the very least, document their answers. Currently, this list of
Release Date: 10/01/15
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal