[GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly communities/institutions
Jean-Claude Guédon
jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca
Fri Aug 10 16:02:27 BST 2012
More precisely, reviews are financed in part by the institutions that
harbour the reviewers. Reviewers are not paid; they simply can transform
this work into "symbolic capital" if their institution includes this
kind of activity in their annual report. To that extent, it can be said
that the institution acts as a fairy godmother (what an expression!!!
Whoever came with that one?) by counting review time as institutional
work. This said, researchers rarely work on fixed schedules. Thinking,
reading, etc., does not go on from 9 to 5. Ad researchers will review,
whatever their institution decides for their annual report. All this
must amount to at least a seventh-degree effect, if not more.
Jean-Claude
Le vendredi 10 août 2012 à 06:34 +0200, Laurent Romary a écrit :
> But indeed, most reviewers +are+ paid. Reviewing is part of the
> academic day job and the activity is part of the reporting made to
> their institutions. This is the whole point here: how far may an
> institution go in acting as a fairy godmother to scholarly publishing.
> Laurent
>
>
>
> Le 9 août 2012 à 16:35, David Prosser a écrit :
>
>
>
> > I didn't say they were paid or that they should be. I merely
> > pointed out that each and ever scholarly journal has at least some
> > of its costs covered by 'fairy godmothers'. They all benefit from
> > massive subsidies. The journals we are talking about here just
> > extend those subsidies a little.
> >
> >
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9 Aug 2012, at 14:56, Sally Morris wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > As far as I am aware, peer reviewers are almost never paid under
> > > any model (I am aware of one publisher that used to reward rapid
> > > responses). I believe there were surveys (sorry, no reference to
> > > hand) which indicated that everyone involved felt that it would be
> > > inappropriate to pay peer reviewers.
> > >
> > > Sally
> > >
> > >
> > > Sally Morris
> > > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13
> > > 3UU
> > > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286
> > > Email: sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________________________
> > > From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org]
> > > On Behalf Of David Prosser
> > > Sent: 09 August 2012 12:08
> > > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> > > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed byscholarly
> > > communities/institutions
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, to a greater or lesser extent all journals are
> > > supported by the 'fairy godmother' model. With peer reviewers
> > > playing the part of the fairy godmothers!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > David Prosser
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:50, Sally Morris wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > These are all examples of the 'fairy godmother' payment model
> > > >
> > > > Sally
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sally Morris
> > > > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK
> > > > BN13 3UU
> > > > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286
> > > > Email: sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > > From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Reckling, Falk, Dr.
> > > > Sent: 09 August 2012 10:53
> > > > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> > > > Cc: Laurent Romary
> > > > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed byscholarly
> > > > communities/institutions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would add some journal form economics:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > a) E-conomics (institutional funding):
> > > > http://www.economics-ejournal.org/
> > > >
> > > > b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): http://econtheory.org/
> > > >
> > > > c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding by IZA):
> > > > http://journals.iza.org/
> > > >
> > > > d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now society based funding):
> > > > http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > b) and d) have an impact factor, a) and c) are new
> > > >
> > > > ___________________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Falk Reckling, PhD
> > > > Humanities & Social Science
> > > > Strategic Analysis, Open Access
> > > >
> > > > Department Head
> > > >
> > > > Austrian Science Fund
> > > > Sensengasse 1
> > > > A-1090 Vienna
> > > > Tel: +43-1-505 67 40-8301
> > > > Mobile: +43-699-19010147
> > > > Email: falk.reckling at fwf.ac.at
> > > > http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/contact/personen/reckling_falk.html
> > > > <image003.jpg>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Von: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] Im Auftrag von Bo-Christer Björk
> > > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. August 2012 11:43
> > > > An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> > > > Cc: Laurent Romary
> > > > Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly
> > > > communities/institutions
> > > >
> > > > Good idea,
> > > >
> > > > Here are four such journals, all of which have been there since
> > > > the 1990s:
> > > >
> > > > Information Research
> > > >
> > > > Journal of Information Technology in Construction
> > > >
> > > > Journal of Electronic Publishing
> > > >
> > > > First Monday
> > > >
> > > > best regards
> > > >
> > > > Bo-Christer Björk
> > > >
> > > > Journal of On 8/9/12 11:35 AM, Laurent Romary wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > As an echo to the fourth option mentioned by Peter, I
> > > > would like to gather references to journals and
> > > > initiatives which are notoriously community based. Could
> > > > members of the list point to what they would be aware
> > > > of?
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > Laurent
> > > >
> > > > Le 7 août 2012 à 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris
> > > > <sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be
> > > > 'free' if someone pays
> > > > the costs.
> > > >
> > > > All the work involved in creating and running a journal
> > > > has to be paid for
> > > > somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is
> > > > e-only (in fact,
> > > > there are some new costs, even though some of the old
> > > > ones disappear).
> > > >
> > > > I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side
> > > > (e.g. the library);
> > > > author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy
> > > > godmother' (e.g. sponsor).
> > > >
> > > > There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly
> > > > community manage publication through contributed labour
> > > > and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero.
> > > > This is described
> > > > inhttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community.
> > > >
> > > > There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale.
> > > > It is simply that most scholars would rather the
> > > > taxpayer and students paid for the administration
> > > > publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the
> > > > scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed
> > > > ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded
> > > > publishing as part of their role, of if they were
> > > > prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia
> > > > has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity
> > > > - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than
> > > > just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much
> > > > cheaper than any current model.
> > > >
> > > > And of course we now have a complete free map of the
> > > > whole world (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better
> > > > than other alternatives that many people and
> > > > organizations are switching to it. And, for many years,
> > > > it didn't have a bank account and existed on "marginal
> > > > resources" from UCL (and probably still does).
> > > >
> > > > But most people will regard this as another fairy tale.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Peter Murray-Rust
> > > > Reader in Molecular Informatics
> > > > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> > > > University of Cambridge
> > > > CB2 1EW, UK
> > > > +44-1223-763069
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > GOAL mailing list
> > > > GOAL at eprints.org
> > > > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> > > >
> > > > Laurent Romary
> > > > INRIA & HUB-IDSL
> > > > laurent.romary at inria.fr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > GOAL mailing list
> > > > GOAL at eprints.org
> > > > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <ATT00001..txt>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <ATT00001..txt>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GOAL mailing list
> > GOAL at eprints.org
> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> Laurent Romary
> INRIA & HUB-IDSL
> laurent.romary at inria.fr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120810/8f653a14/attachment-0001.html
More information about the GOAL
mailing list