chesneycat (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} chesneycat) wrote,@ 2008-01-22 12:30:00 |
|
| Current mood: |  amused |
| Entry tags: | astronomy, papers, phsyics, publishing, research |
Some thoughts on academic publishing
I've just been invited to consider submitting an article to a newly established astronomy journal, which shall remain nameless. My first thought is 'SCAM!', naturally, so I check the links out and it appears kosher.
It's peer reviewed, the editors are people I recognise and respect in a number of fields, and it's attempting to fill a niche in the market, namely that of 'an open access publication model'. What does that mean? Unlike every other major journal out there, you don't have to subscribe to the journal to have access to the articles, and they cover their costs by charging the author.
In many ways, this is a good idea. There's no reason why you can't do excellent research in a country with more limited resources than places like the UK, US, Europe, Japan or elsewhere. Journal subscriptions can be a crippling extra if you're part of a very small number of researchers. Anything which encourages the dissemination of science on a broader (peer-reviewed) level is fantastic, in my book. On top of this, look at the costs of publishing in Nature or Astrophysical Journal. The page costs can be pretty extreme... but if you can't afford them, consider the UK's Monthly Notices which has no page charges, is open to articles from anyone, and has almost as high an impact factor as ApJ, if not higher in some areas. Given MNRAS, why would I ever want to spend 400 Euros to print somewhere lower-impact, even if it does work out cheaper than ApJ?
And there's another big BUT. What about astro-ph, your friendly neighbourhood pre-print server? Providing the authors spend the half-hour or so necessary (okay, it's usually more unless you're dead lucky on the day) to upload their papers, anyone can access astro-ph and retrieve whatever articles they fancy. Yes, there's no control over peer-review, but while there are frequent appearances by the crackpots, simply waiting to upload your paper until you can add those magic words 'accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journal of choice' will give your article both the weight of its genuine peer-reviewed status, and the free access that science in the less-developed world desperately needs in order to grow as it deserves.
I applaud their motivation, really I do. But honestly? They're trying to fill an ecological niche already inhabited by the feline perfection of the better, cheaper and higher-impact astro-ph. Whoever approved their business model really didn't do their research very well, I fear...
In many ways, this is a good idea. There's no reason why you can't do excellent research in a country with more limited resources than places like the UK, US, Europe, Japan or elsewhere. Journal subscriptions can be a crippling extra if you're part of a very small number of researchers. Anything which encourages the dissemination of science on a broader (peer-reviewed) level is fantastic, in my book. On top of this, look at the costs of publishing in Nature or Astrophysical Journal. The page costs can be pretty extreme... but if you can't afford them, consider the UK's Monthly Notices which has no page charges, is open to articles from anyone, and has almost as high an impact factor as ApJ, if not higher in some areas. Given MNRAS, why would I ever want to spend 400 Euros to print somewhere lower-impact, even if it does work out cheaper than ApJ?
And there's another big BUT. What about astro-ph, your friendly neighbourhood pre-print server? Providing the authors spend the half-hour or so necessary (okay, it's usually more unless you're dead lucky on the day) to upload their papers, anyone can access astro-ph and retrieve whatever articles they fancy. Yes, there's no control over peer-review, but while there are frequent appearances by the crackpots, simply waiting to upload your paper until you can add those magic words 'accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journal of choice' will give your article both the weight of its genuine peer-reviewed status, and the free access that science in the less-developed world desperately needs in order to grow as it deserves.
I applaud their motivation, really I do. But honestly? They're trying to fill an ecological niche already inhabited by the feline perfection of the better, cheaper and higher-impact astro-ph. Whoever approved their business model really didn't do their research very well, I fear...
