1 / 21

Starting an Open Access journal: Supporting new research fields with Open Access

Starting an Open Access journal: Supporting new research fields with Open Access. Symposium "Visibility: building online scholarly presence“ – 26 October, 2012 Frank van Laerhoven Editor-in-Chief International Journal of the Commons www.thecommonsjournal.org. Outline: ` Why a new journal?

gabriel-livingston
Télécharger la présentation

Starting an Open Access journal: Supporting new research fields with Open Access

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Starting an Open Access journal:Supporting new research fields with Open Access Symposium "Visibility: building online scholarly presence“ – 26 October, 2012 Frank van Laerhoven Editor-in-Chief International Journal of the Commons www.thecommonsjournal.org

  2. Outline: • `Why a new journal? • Why open access? • How did we set up the journal? • What problems do we face? How do we try to solve them? • OJS (the system that manages our workflow) is a bit clunky – it is not very user friendly – authors, reviewers, and editors get frustrated and opt out • The business model is based on author fees rather than on a subscription system – authors are scared away by upfront costs • It is hard to get an impact factor – authors worrying about tenure won’t submit • The credibility of open access journals is contested – authors and reviewers won’t commit • Editorial Board is hard to motivate – ISI urges us to list figure heads, but due to prestige and credibility issues (?) many of those do not commit to working towards a better functioning journal

  3. Why a new journal on this topic? • 1985-2005: Well over 10,000 articles on the commons • Scattered over 2,000 (!) different journals • More than 250 journals published 10 or more articles on the topic

  4. Dispersion may hinder the accumulation of knowledge and the cross-fertilization that is crucial to the success of inter-disciplinary endeavors • So, in 2007 our society (IASC) decided to dedicate a journal to the commons…

  5. Why open access? • Knowledge is a commons! • Scientists are hired brains paid for by tax resources – the knowledge and insights that they generate should be treated as public goods that are NOT put behind pay walls • Practitioners and researchers in developing countries have no access to expensive conventional journals

  6. How did we set up the journal? • Via Igitur • Igitur has a portfolio of over 20 open access journals • http://www.uu.nl/university/library/NL/igitur/overzicht/Pages/default.aspx) • We use Open Journal Systems (OJS) to manage the workflow • http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs

  7. What problems do we face? How do we try to solve them? • OJS is a bit clunky – not very user friendly • The business model is based on author fees rather than on a license system • It is hard to get an impact factor • The credibility of open access journals is contested • Editorial Board members are hard to motivate!

  8. OJS is a bit clunky – not very user friendly • For authors, reviewers, and managing editors it is not self-evident what is expected from them • They are not prompted through easy-to-understand steps • This leads to constant frustration with our users…. • ….some of them opt out and turn to other venues… • Solution: Use a different system – e.g. a customized system that we’d buy on the market • Downside: OJS is an open-source solution that is likely to develop towards becoming the standard for OA • OJS comes with Igitur – we wouldn’t want to trade in Igitur for support from one ICT guy, as Igitur’s support is priceless

  9. The business model is based on author fees rather than on a license system • Igitur charges us 750 Euros per year • Our copy-editor charges us 8 Euros per page • The managing editors do their work for free • We charge $10-$15 per page (depending on IASC membership) – i.e. $200-$350 per article • Problem: Authors are directly faced with these costs… • …rather than libraries who’d pay a (steep) subscription fee under the conventional business model • Solution: Work with Special Features (2,000 Euros lump sum) • Finding structural funding (from our society, or from other funders) has proved difficult so far

  10. It is hard to get an impact factor • The chicken-and-the-egg • Scopus & ISI require high-end output in order to allow you into their indices… • …Authors won’t share their high-end work with you, unless you are indexed by Scopus, and better still, ISI • Solution: • Rely on our society members for input – i.e. senior members who do not need to worry about tenure • Rely on our editorial board members for input (less successful) • We managed to get into Scopus • Application with ISI is pending – an issue is the fluctuation in our output numbers

  11. The credibility of open access journals is contested • Predatory publishing – publishers predating on authors who are pushed to publish or perish • See Jeffrey Beal • http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385 • Our author fee model has led to an accusation of being a ‘vanity press’.. • ..this accusation came from an author whom we eventually convinced with good arguments that we weren’t.. • ..but what about those prospecting authors who do not express their concern, and simply eliminate us as an possible venue for publication of their work?

  12. The credibility of open access journals is contested • Solutions? • Quality indicators for open access journals – Theme of a recent symposium in Rotterdam • http://www.surf.nl/en/actueel/Pages/Internationalscientificcommunityagreeonneedforqualityindicatorsfornew(OpenAccess)journals.aspx

  13. The credibility of open access journals is contested • Solutions? • Indicators regarding the transparency of the peer review process • JelteWicherts (UvT) developed a tool to assess transparency, based on: • (1) peer-reviewed peer review, • (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and • (3) online data publication. • http://www.frontiersin.org/computational_neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2012.00020/abstract

  14. The credibility of open access journals is contested • Solutions? • Indicators regarding the quality of the editorial board? • CWTS (Leiden) study shows a correlation between the average h-indices of the EB members, and the impact factor of conventional, established journals • Can this measure serve as a predictor of quality and subsequent success of OA journals? • Problem: • Causal direction: Does a good EB lead to better journals, or do good journals attract better EB members? • It is more important to get a hinge of what EB member do to increase the quality of the journal (e.g. involvement in reviewing, publishing in the journal, participation in journal policy decisions)

  15. Editorial Board members are hard to motivate • Our quest for indexation (ISI) led us to invite figure heads to our board… • Getting all of them involved in running the journal is hard! • Solution: Kick everyone out that doesn’t contribute • Downside: As long as we are being assessed by ISI, it is good to have them on our list • Future solutions that we consider • Publish the number of reviews that EM members have been involved in • Publish the number of articles that EM members have submitted to the journal • Create sections that certain EM members take responsibility of • Mandate participation in regular board meetings • Rotate EM membership

  16. Thank you! I hope there is still time for questions…(as this is slide #21…)

More Related