For scholarly publishing, the secret sauce - the essential thing - is a mechanism for review
I’d venture to say that’s close but not phrased quite right. The secret sauce of academic journal publishing is that we get young academics hired. If you can figure out a way for a young junior faculty member to get tenure without publishing in a traditional journal then you’re golden. But as it stands today, the name of the journal is the currency on your CV. Peer review is part of the mechanics of how that works, but it’s the prestige that’s the key part, not the review mechanism itself.
Tenure committees can’t read the actual papers of all the applicants to form an opinion on the quality of the research. They need some form of proxy. Today that’s the impact factor and reputation of the journal title, almost exclusively. It’s entirely possible that that will change and something else (or most likely a variety of something elses) will take its place. There are a lot of people working on alternatives right now. I don’t know what the winners are going to be, but it’s not going to be number of tweets or Facebook likes. If you want to break the existing system you have to figure out how to get a young academic without an established reputation noticed in her field and hired. If you can do that without the need for a journal at all then you can put a crack in the foundation of the industry.
> Tenure committees can’t read the actual papers of all the applicants to form an opinion on the quality of the research.
I once discussed this with the dean of a humanities faculty in Norway. He said they did not take h-index and similar metrics into account while debating tenure.
So I asked: "How do you evaluate the applicants, then?". "We read their papers" he replied. A room full of professors laughed loud.
He then went on telling us about how they shortlist the candidates and how many paper each person in the committee has to read. The figures where something like one paper or small book read in depth for each candidate and five papers read more casually. The candidates choose the reading list.
To me it does not seem a great amount of work for somebody that is about to appoint another scholar as their peer. It also seems to me as a very decent way to treat applicants: as people that did contribute interesting knowledge, not data points.
Astronomy is a bit unique in that there is no real hierarchy of journals in our field. There are really only four main "bread and butter" journals: Astronomical Journal, Astrophyiscal Journal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, and Astronomy & Astrophysics. A paper published in any one of these journals has roughly equal weight and "impact".
I think this unique status will help OJA succeed - astronomers are already used to judging papers from all four journals with roughly equal weight. If some senior people get behind it and start making big, important papers available via OJA, I think it really might take off.
Page charges can be seriously expensive. I think many academics would be happy to avoid the whole mess and just post to the arxiv and get peer review via OJA. It's already more or less standard practice to post to the arxiv either upon submission or acceptance, this just formalizes that practice and adds an element of certification of the result.
I absolutely agree with Doug. The key is prestige. Our approach to that is to turn peer review itself into a measurable research output -- see our recent partnership with PeerJ for an example (http://blog.publons.com/post/85660504608/publons-partners-wi...)
I'm a physicist and a see a few problems with this. Currently, refereeing is essentially community service. Have you talked to any editors at journals such as the Physical Review or New Journal of Physics? I would imagine that the largest cost of running a journal (let's say an online journal) are the costs of the editors salaries. Let's say that you scale your referee system (which is cute) and add in statistics on referees (do they often accept/reject? Areas of expertise? Time to submit a review, etc.), your editor will still have to take time to resolve the inevitable disputes between authors and referees. As the number of papers grows, you will need to either have more editors, or start paying editors to do this full time.
Another problem that you will run into is the question of curated content. There is a place for having refereed content that is technically correct, but not necessarily impactful (for example, Nature's scientific reports), but such a journal will have a low impact and will have a hard time attracting impactful papers (which are still valuable for career advancement). Otherwise, your editors can start to curate the content based on impact, but this requires even more time and expertise from your editors. I think you'll eventually run into some of the same problems as traditional journals...
Have you thought about working with existing journals to improve the refereeing process?
For some of the other issues that you bring up, such as attaching code--I think that this will have to be something required by funding agencies. I have found the "new" supplementary material sections of journals to be a source of improvement...
It seems there's been quite a bit of talk about collaboration/review in science and academia as of late. Makes sense, as there are some real unsolved problems here.
Shameless plug: I'm also working on tackling peer review, but from a bit of a different angle. Penflip.com (https://www.penflip.com/) is like GitHub for non-programmers. It hosts public and private writing projects backed by git repos, but the interface is stripped down and simplified. Command line access is unnecessary (though still possible) thanks to an in-browser writing interface.
While still relatively early in development, I think Penflip has big potential in academia and science. If anybody here is interested in this space, I would love to hear your thoughts on my project.
You say Penflip is for non-programmers, but your project page says stuff like:
* Markdown support
* Built on Git
and non-programmers have no idea what these are and why they should care. You should probably do some user testing with non-programmers to figure out what claims are relevant on your front page.
EDIT: pricing is confusing as well.
It says "Plans can be paid monthly or annually.", but the paying plans mention that they have to be "(paid annually)" which does not make sense. Can you clarify ? So can you actually pay per month or do you have to pay per year ?
Additionally, what is the license for public projects ? GitHub makes it clear that they have to be open-source. How about on Penflip ? Can they be open, while retain a copyright license ?
Also, why don't you have some intermediate plans ? Imagine I'm writing a book, having the 8 dollars plan for 50 projects seems completely overkill, I'd probably want a plan in there with 2 to 5 project or something like that. 50 seems like a company/organization plan.
And it's not clear what "premium support" means in the pricing, nor why we should care about it.
This being said, it's a good project, but I see many ways you could improve on how you communicate around it.
Why does the pdf for the example YC application (despite having a lot of text)[^1] only say:
Congratulations, you’ve successfully created a SparkleShare repository!
Any files you add or change in this folder will be automatically synced to
ssh://[email protected]/loren/yc-application and everyone connected to it.
SparkleShare is an Open Source software program that helps people
collaborate and share files. If you like what we do, consider buying us a
beer: http://www.sparkleshare.org/
Have fun! :)
It seems like you should give a nod to Prof. MacFarlane if you are going to rely so heavily on his project. Do you support all of the features of pandoc's extended markdown format?
I came here to comment that it is a little strange that a project organized around web publishing would not have hyperlinked footnotes. I had forgotten how distracting it was to have to scroll down to the footnote and then scroll back up and try to get back to where you were in the paper.
Halfway through this comment I realized that I could not recall if there was any discussion about uniform publication style/format. Would papers in the OJA all have the same format (including hyperlinked footnotes!) or would it be a potpourri of different formatting quirks?
> if our editorial board had been paid for their work (as many are)
To my knowledge, the vast majority of editorial boards are composed of researchers who are not paid by the publisher (they have their normal salary, the same as if they did not take part in the editorial board), nor even have a contract with the publisher. I don't think it's true that many editorial boards of academic journals are getting any money out of this job.
In traditional journals, the outcome of reviews is a yes or no for the article to be published. My feeling is that this is stressful and unecessarily constraining for an open journal on internet. Why not assigning points and let reader set their own point sum threshold when they subscribe ? The review mechanism could then be more automatic and wouldn't need an editor.
My wife has peer-reviewed a number of articles and she doesn't just provide a Yes or No. The final outcome is one of four choices. Publishable in current form, Publishable after minor revisions, Not publishable in current form or not suitable for journal. In addition to this she is expected to provide at least half a page of critique and feedback that is (anonymously) passed on to the authors as justification for her decision.
For example the last paper she just reviewed was the third revision of paper she rejected the first time around. The authors had obviously taken her (and others) comments on board and produced a better paper because of it. Had instead the paper been published online in its original form, but with a very low score, neither the authors or the readers would have benefited.
[+] [-] dougmccune|11 years ago|reply
I’d venture to say that’s close but not phrased quite right. The secret sauce of academic journal publishing is that we get young academics hired. If you can figure out a way for a young junior faculty member to get tenure without publishing in a traditional journal then you’re golden. But as it stands today, the name of the journal is the currency on your CV. Peer review is part of the mechanics of how that works, but it’s the prestige that’s the key part, not the review mechanism itself.
Tenure committees can’t read the actual papers of all the applicants to form an opinion on the quality of the research. They need some form of proxy. Today that’s the impact factor and reputation of the journal title, almost exclusively. It’s entirely possible that that will change and something else (or most likely a variety of something elses) will take its place. There are a lot of people working on alternatives right now. I don’t know what the winners are going to be, but it’s not going to be number of tweets or Facebook likes. If you want to break the existing system you have to figure out how to get a young academic without an established reputation noticed in her field and hired. If you can do that without the need for a journal at all then you can put a crack in the foundation of the industry.
[+] [-] gioele|11 years ago|reply
I once discussed this with the dean of a humanities faculty in Norway. He said they did not take h-index and similar metrics into account while debating tenure.
So I asked: "How do you evaluate the applicants, then?". "We read their papers" he replied. A room full of professors laughed loud.
He then went on telling us about how they shortlist the candidates and how many paper each person in the committee has to read. The figures where something like one paper or small book read in depth for each candidate and five papers read more casually. The candidates choose the reading list.
To me it does not seem a great amount of work for somebody that is about to appoint another scholar as their peer. It also seems to me as a very decent way to treat applicants: as people that did contribute interesting knowledge, not data points.
[+] [-] ngoldbaum|11 years ago|reply
I think this unique status will help OJA succeed - astronomers are already used to judging papers from all four journals with roughly equal weight. If some senior people get behind it and start making big, important papers available via OJA, I think it really might take off.
Page charges can be seriously expensive. I think many academics would be happy to avoid the whole mess and just post to the arxiv and get peer review via OJA. It's already more or less standard practice to post to the arxiv either upon submission or acceptance, this just formalizes that practice and adds an element of certification of the result.
[+] [-] pizza_boy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 001sky|11 years ago|reply
This is a completely unacceptable situation, it seems.
[+] [-] ylem|11 years ago|reply
Another problem that you will run into is the question of curated content. There is a place for having refereed content that is technically correct, but not necessarily impactful (for example, Nature's scientific reports), but such a journal will have a low impact and will have a hard time attracting impactful papers (which are still valuable for career advancement). Otherwise, your editors can start to curate the content based on impact, but this requires even more time and expertise from your editors. I think you'll eventually run into some of the same problems as traditional journals...
Have you thought about working with existing journals to improve the refereeing process?
For some of the other issues that you bring up, such as attaching code--I think that this will have to be something required by funding agencies. I have found the "new" supplementary material sections of journals to be a source of improvement...
[+] [-] opminion|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ginsparg/physics/blurb/pg01unesco...
[2] http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ginsparg/physics/blurb/
[+] [-] guynamedloren|11 years ago|reply
Shameless plug: I'm also working on tackling peer review, but from a bit of a different angle. Penflip.com (https://www.penflip.com/) is like GitHub for non-programmers. It hosts public and private writing projects backed by git repos, but the interface is stripped down and simplified. Command line access is unnecessary (though still possible) thanks to an in-browser writing interface.
While still relatively early in development, I think Penflip has big potential in academia and science. If anybody here is interested in this space, I would love to hear your thoughts on my project.
[+] [-] ekianjo|11 years ago|reply
* Markdown support
* Built on Git
and non-programmers have no idea what these are and why they should care. You should probably do some user testing with non-programmers to figure out what claims are relevant on your front page.
EDIT: pricing is confusing as well. It says "Plans can be paid monthly or annually.", but the paying plans mention that they have to be "(paid annually)" which does not make sense. Can you clarify ? So can you actually pay per month or do you have to pay per year ?
Additionally, what is the license for public projects ? GitHub makes it clear that they have to be open-source. How about on Penflip ? Can they be open, while retain a copyright license ?
Also, why don't you have some intermediate plans ? Imagine I'm writing a book, having the 8 dollars plan for 50 projects seems completely overkill, I'd probably want a plan in there with 2 to 5 project or something like that. 50 seems like a company/organization plan.
And it's not clear what "premium support" means in the pricing, nor why we should care about it.
This being said, it's a good project, but I see many ways you could improve on how you communicate around it.
[+] [-] dfc|11 years ago|reply
[^1]: https://www.penflip.com/loren/yc-application
[+] [-] dfc|11 years ago|reply
Halfway through this comment I realized that I could not recall if there was any discussion about uniform publication style/format. Would papers in the OJA all have the same format (including hyperlinked footnotes!) or would it be a potpourri of different formatting quirks?
[+] [-] p4bl0|11 years ago|reply
To my knowledge, the vast majority of editorial boards are composed of researchers who are not paid by the publisher (they have their normal salary, the same as if they did not take part in the editorial board), nor even have a contract with the publisher. I don't think it's true that many editorial boards of academic journals are getting any money out of this job.
[+] [-] chmike|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dagw|11 years ago|reply
For example the last paper she just reviewed was the third revision of paper she rejected the first time around. The authors had obviously taken her (and others) comments on board and produced a better paper because of it. Had instead the paper been published online in its original form, but with a very low score, neither the authors or the readers would have benefited.
[+] [-] robertwalsh0|11 years ago|reply
It wasn't a heavily utilized feature so we deprecated it. Maybe if the community says there's a big need for this we'll bring it back?
[+] [-] leccine|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fiatjaf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opminion|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wbillingsley|11 years ago|reply
http://rickyrobinson.id.au/2009/07/24/citemine-a-new-way-to-...