[GOAL] Re: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
Bo-Christer Björk
bo-christer.bjork at hanken.fi
Sun Dec 22 07:15:55 GMT 2013
Dear Dana,
Unfortunately this is only partly true. The "epub ahead of print"
practices vary a lot. Even though articles after acceptance could be
copy-edited straight away and posted, editors and publishers don't want
to have excessive lists of dozens of articles up there, especially if
they haven't been assigned issues and page numbers yet. That would in
itself be bad publicity. For instance JASIST in which I have published
several articles recently tends to put up eprints a couple of months
before final publishing, which means they could have waited half a year
from acceptance already.
A real horror story of a journal is Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management (a Tailor and Frances journal, but essentially run by editors
from a Lithuanian university). Together with a collegue we had an
article accepted in March 2012 which still is waiting to be published.
And they don't do epubs before print. While this is bad service their
practice of publishing articles from Lituanian colleagues much faster
than the rest (can be studied at the websiteI) is clearly unethical.
Bo-Christer
On 12/21/13 8:52 PM, Dana Roth wrote:
>
> Re: "Publishing in scholarly peer reviewed journals usually entails
> long delays from submission to publication. In part this is due to the
> length of the peer review process and *in part because of the
> dominating tradition of publication in issues*, earlier a necessity of
> paper-based publishing, which creates backlogs of manuscripts waiting
> in line." ... in: http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf
>
>
> Isn't is generally true (at least in the science and technology fields) that 'Epub ahead of print' publishing practices have obviated delays in waiting for issues to be completed?
>
> I understand that in mathematics and other fields that delays between 'Epub ahead of print' and the final completed issue can stretch out for ~a year.
>
>
> Dana L. Roth
> Caltech Library 1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> dzrlib at library.caltech.edu <mailto:dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
>
> *From:*goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Bo-Christer Björk
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:27 AM
> *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/20131222/ee8fa2a6/attachment-0001.html
More information about the GOAL
mailing list