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

Sat Oct 3 22:50:30 BST 2015

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 
<Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> 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" 
> <eric.archambault at science-metrix.com> 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.archambault at science-metrix.com
>> Web:    science-metrix.com
>>              1science.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151003/3ef8707b/attachment-0001.html 