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

[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-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Bo-Christer Björk
> *Sent:* zaterdag 21 december 2013 18:27
> *To:* goal at 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.gerritsma at wur.nl <mailto:Wouter.gerritsma at 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-bounces at eprints.org <mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org>
>     [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Claire Redhead
>     *Sent:* donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
>     *To:* goal at eprints.org <mailto:goal at 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 at eprints.org  <mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
>
>     http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131221/04e11932/attachment.html