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

Sun Oct 4 20:26:45 BST 2015

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
dzrlib at library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
________________________________
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org] on behalf of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bosman at 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.bosman at uu.nl<mailto:j.bosman at 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=-IfPy3IAAAAJ&hl=en> / ISNI<http://www.isni.org/0000000028810209> /
Mendeley<http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/> / MicrosoftAcademic<http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman> / ORCID<http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5796-2727> / ResearcherID<http://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253D&Init=Yes&SrcApp=CR&returnCode=ROUTER.Success&SID=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&M 2.0<http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/> / Ref4UU<http://ref4uu.blogspot.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at 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 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<mailto:eric.archambault at science-metrix.com>
Web:    science-metrix.com<http://www.science-metrix.com/>
             1science.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151004/b8b9532e/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 995 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
Url : http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151004/b8b9532e/attachment-0001.jpg 